Week in review 11/17/12

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

President Obama

After the election, President Obama is now talking about climate change.  He isn’t proposing any specific policies, but wants to have a ‘conversation.’  Huffington Post has an article on this:

“I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions,” Obama said. “And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.”

Responding to a question from The New York Times’ Mark Landler about calls to combat climate change in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Obama cautioned, as others have, that no single weather event can be linked directly to climate change. But he said that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the changing climate is contributing to extreme weather more generally.

What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,” Obama stated. “We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.”

Hmmmmm. . .   I wonder what his source was on the bolded statement.

Climate caution

Some welcome climate caution from DailyClimate.  Tread  carefully linking extreme weather to climate crisis.  An excerpt:

Many climate advocates hope that the recent bout of extreme weather will awaken Americans to the dangers of climate change. Advocates and scientists have pointed to superstorm Sandy and the Texas drought as clear and present signs of the climate crisis. Although the public does seem to be taking notice, I fear these efforts could backfire if we do not proceed cautiously with our framing around extreme weather and climate change. Our challenge to solve the climate crisis could become more difficult in the end. 

How? Let’s consider where efforts to tie extreme weather to climate crisis might lead:

1. Could linking today’s extreme weather with the urgency of the climate crisis lead the public to support policies that reduce emissions?

Probably not. The link between today’s extreme weather and greenhouse gas policy is weak. Policy decisions made today are not going to eliminate or even significantly alter the patterns of these extreme weather events in the next few decades. 

This is due to the long lifetime of the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere coupled with the time it takes to change our societal infrastructure. Furthermore, over the near and medium term, there are more effective ways to respond to extreme weather, namely investing in infrastructure, planning, and institution-building to make communities more resilient.

Be persuasive, be brave, be arrested

Nature has published commentary by Jeremy Grantham entitled Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested (if necessary).  Subtitle: A resource crisis exacerbated by global warming is looming, argues financier Jeremy Grantham. More scientists must speak out. His closing paragraph:

It is crucial that scientists take more career risks and sound a more realistic, more desperate, note on the global-warming problem. Younger scientists are obsessed by thoughts of tenure, so it is probably up to older, senior and retired scientists to do the heavy lifting. Be arrested if necessary. This is not only the crisis of your lives — it is also the crisis of our species’ existence. I implore you to be brave.

Well this is a different angle on ‘going emeritus.’

Surging storms

The Christian Science Monitor has a very good article Can the U.S. adapt in time to avert coastal damage?

Climate Dialogue

In case you haven’t picked up on this from comments on the other threads, there is a new blog Climate Dialogue, which has a unique format.  From the About page:

Climate Dialogue offers a platform for discussions between (climate) scientists on important climate topics that are of interest to both fellow scientists and the general public. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views that scientists have on these issues.

Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by reacting to  each others’ arguments moderated by one of the members of the editorial staff. Once the discussion has reached the point where it is clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why, the editioral staff will round off the discussion. The decision on when that point will have been reached is up to the editorial staff. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion.

To round off the discussion on a particular topic, the Climate Dialogue editor will write a summary,  describing the areas of agreement and disagreement between the discussants. The participants will be asked to approve this final article, the discussion between the experts on that topic will be closed and the editorial staff will open a new discussion on a different topic.

The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.

Based on the IAC recommendation that ‘the full range of views’ should be covered in the IPCC-reports, [Netherlands] Parliament asked the government ‘to also involve climate skeptics in future studies  on climate change’.

As a result of this, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment  announced a couple of projects that are aimed to increase this involvement. Climate Dialogue is one of these projects.

The first topic is the decline of Arctic sea ice.  I am one of three invited experts (the other two are Walt Meiers and Ron Lindsay).    The 3 experts and the moderators have one discussion thread, there is another thread for public comments, and third thread for off topic comments (interesting to see who has gotten relegated to the off topic comments).

The bottom line is that the 3 experts are not in major disagreement.  This disappoints a number of people (from both sides).  We pretty much agree on the relevant physical processes and the uncertainties.  But how evidence gets weighted and the actual reasoning process leads to somewhat different conclusions about attribution. It will be very interesting to see the summary from the editorial staff.

Overall, a very good addition to the climate debate.  Check it out if you haven’t already.

927 responses to “Week in review 11/17/12

  1. Judith I believe the URL to ClimateDialogue should be:

    http://www.climatedialogue.org/

  2. “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago”, Obama stated.

    Well, Mr. President, tell us the scientific basis for this bold, post-election statement, if there is any.

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1802

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    • The game is up, Mr. Obama. Climategate emails exposed deceptive global temperature data in Nov 2009. Official responses strongly suggest publicly financed science was purposefully distorted to deceive the public.

      You can clear this matter up immediately by ordering your Science Advisor and the Secretary of Energy to address, confirm, or deny experimental data and observations [1] that directly falsify the foundation of the AGW claim.

      [1] “Neutron repulsion, The Apeiron J. 19, 123-150 (2012)

      http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf“

      • Mr. Obama’s scientists cannot predict global temperatures, but I can confidently state that Thomas Jefferson’s assumptions in the 1776 Declaration of Independence were scientifically correct:

        A Power Higher than the combined forces of all world governments – is the force our Creator (Reality, Truth, God, Spirit of the Universe) used to
        _ a.) Make the elements
        _ b.) Birth the world ~5 Gyr ago
        _ c.) Sustain the origin of life ~3.5 Gyr ago
        _ d.) Sustain life’s evolution and endowment of humans with

        Unalienable rights Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in 1776 to
        _ a.) Govern ourselves, and to
        _ b.) Establish governments to protect
        _ c.) Our other Divine and unalienable rights to
        _ d.) Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and to
        _ e.) Abolish any government that becomes destructive of these ends

        It would benefit everyone and restore sanity to our society if Mr. Obama ordered an immediate end to deceptive government science before we reach that final stage.

  3. Hmmmmm. . . I wonder what his source was on the bolded statement.

    Teleprompter

    • Perhaps he was overwhelmed by the evidence and just got it backwards. There is a lot of that going around.

      • I’ll bet the source was Hansen being misquoted.

        IIRC The rise of extreme temperature events(days above 95F in the US) has been faster then models predicted according to Hansen.

        Of course to make such a strong case then one has to draw the line on climate in the 1950’s(there apparently was no climate prior to 1955) to avoid the 1930’s problem.

  4. ClimateDialogue.org says:

    The main task of the advisory board is to guard the neutrality of the platform and to advise the editorial staff about its activities.

    Then it says the editorial staff are:

    Editorial staff
    Project leader is Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Van Dorland is a senior scientist and climate advisor in the Climate Services section and is often operating at the interface between science and society.

    The second member of the editorial staff is Bart Strengers. He is a climate policy analyst and modeler in the IMAGE-project at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and has for many years been involved in the discussion with climate skeptics.

    The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.

    All the editorial staff and the board are insiders; i.e members of the climate alarmist establishment. How on Earth can they fulfill the ‘main task’ objectively?

    • Peter,
      Marcel Crok is far from being a “member of the climate alarmist establishment”. IMHO, this project is a welcome change. The structure of the discussions they are facilitating certainly requires some heavy-duty moderation of the public comments, which are not censored in any way, as far as I can tell.

      But it does permit the interested lurker to focus on the relevant comments without having to wade through the recitations from the all too familiar barrage of bitchers ‘n bashers whose blindspots seem to preclude their developing an ability to step down from their well-known hobby-horses.

  5. Do EPA government science authoritarians control average global temperatures or, is it the sun, stupid?

    A secular, socialist US government is essentially using the EPA to engage in an academic exercise which is the equivalent of casting of chicken bones to foretell the future and playing with the lives of the productive in the bargain.

    “Unfortunately, the academics, activists, politicians and bureaucrats leading the push for carbon dioxide taxation and use of renewable energy are non-producers who are woefully ignorant of both the economic reality of productive activity and the practical limits of technology. They are techno-economic-illiterates with a cargo cult understanding of production. Their prescriptions amount to a ritualistic belief that admitting sin (GW) and making an appropriate sacrifice (carbon dioxide taxes) will in some undefined (magical) way bring forth all the right changes, discoveries and implementations that are needed to effect a bright new world of clean endlessly renewable energy with minimal inconvenience to anyone…” ~Walter Starck

    • Waggy said:

      “Do EPA government science authoritarians control average global temperatures or, is it the sun, stupid?”

      ____
      Or is it neither, but the sum of all forcings, Stupid.

    • Thank you, Wagathon, for speaking the truth, bluntly and forcefully.

      The powerful force in the core of the Sun:

      1. Made our elements
      2. Birthed the world ~5 billion years ago
      3. Sustained the beginnings of life on Earth ~3.5 billion years ago
      4. Sustained the evolution of life into the highly evolved forms here today
      5. Endowed humans with unusual talents and the unalienable rights Thomas Jefferson described in the US Declaration of Independence
      6. Voyager spacecraft found in control of a vast region of space that extends 18 billion kilometers out from the Sun [A].
      7. At least ten billion, billion (~10^19) Earths could fit inside this gigantic
      “sphere of influence” that is now filled with waste products from the Sun’s pulsar core [B].
      8. The real Earth’s close proximity to this powerful pulsar and its daily impact on Earth cause our constantly changing climate [C].

      The AGW story ignores these scientific facts.

      [A] Ron Cowan, “Voyager’s long good-bye. NASA probes find surprises at the edge of the Solar System,” Nature 489, 20-21 (2012)

      http://www.nature.com/news/voyager-s-long-goodbye-1.11348

      [B] Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON J. 19, 123-150
      (2012) http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf
      [C] Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham and Stig E. Friberg, “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/

  6. Do EPA government science authoritarians control average global temperatures…

    The government is essentially using the EPA to engage in an academic exercise which is the equivalent of casting of chicken bones to foretell the future and playing with the lives of the productive in the bargain.

    EPA documentation accompanying proposed greenhouse gas emission regulations states that it’s regulations will reduce the average global temperature by ’0.006 to 0.0015C by 2100,’ but that of course assumes that we are not headed for an overdue ice age in 50 years, right? Reality is stranger than fiction.

  7. On the one hand, Obama is making the weird claim that temperature is increasing faster. On the other hand, he says that it’s “iimpacted by human behavior and carbon emissions”. I read “impacted by” as weaker than the usual clichés. It doesn’t rule out a less dominant role for AGW than the IPCC asserts. Not sure what it means.

    • I think it means we need to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.

    • Dagfinn

      I think it means (if you live in the USA), dig deeper into your pocket – another tax to save the planet is going to pop up somewhere.

      You voted for him – now you’ve got him.

      Max

      • Indeed. Extraordinary stupidity. We in Europe are now witnessing the long term effects of social democracy. It’s appalling. So what does the USA do? Elect someone who will do the same thing. Poor America.

  8. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,” Obama stated.

    Mr President, you are being misled.

    Here is the evidence from the observed data.

    Here is IPCC’s projection:

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    Here is the observed data for the global warming rate in the last 10 years.

    http://bit.ly/ST4ClL

    Here are what the data show:

    1) HADCRUT3 => -0.09 deg C decade cooling
    2) HADCRUT4=> -0.04 deg C per decade cooling
    3) GISS => -0.01 deg C per decade cooling
    4) UAH => 0.03 deg C per decade warming (only 15% of IPCC prediction)
    5) RSS=> -0.07 deg C per decade cooling

    Mr. President, IPCC predicted for a warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade, but all the observed dataset show a much smaller global warming rate. Actually, most of them show a slight cooling or a warming of only a fraction of IPCC’s prediction. Mr. President, your statement the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted 10 years ago” is incorrect. You have been misled.

    • Tut, tut, Girma’s being tricksy with graphs, again.

      What if we don’t start with the hot spike at 2002? That, after all, is going to distort the results.

      What if instead, we examine the marked effect of the two strong La Niña at the end of the record (2008; 2010 – 11 ‘double-dip’)?

      Comparing HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP we see something interesting. We see that those two strong La Niña at the end of the record have a substantial effect.

      Decadal trend 1995 – 2008

      HadCRUT4 0.18C
      GISTEMP 0.19C

      Decadal trend 1995 – present

      HadCRUT4 0.1C
      GISTEMP 0.1C

      Let’s run that back a bit and see what happens. Here’s HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP from 1975 – 2008 and 1975 – present.

      Decadal trend 1975 – 2008

      HadCRUT4 0.19C
      GISTEMP 0.18C

      Decadal trend 1975 – present

      HadCRUT4 0.17C
      GISTEMP 0.16C

      And there you have it. The two strong La Niña at the end of the record have a substantial effect on the decadal trend.

      We should therefore be very careful how we represent the recent term GAT data.

      Shouldn’t we, Girma?

  9. Willis Eschenbach

    Good stuff, Judith. One article says:

    But [the President] said that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the changing climate is contributing to extreme weather more generally.

    I love the vagueness of that statement. Climate change is “contributing to” extreme weather. What does that even mean?

    And there are so few things in climate science for which there is “overwhelming evidence”, I’d have to see a dozen solid citations to back that hyperbole up. Amateur alarmism.

    But that’s just the author. The President himself is quoted directly as saying:

    We do know that there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

    No, we don’t know that at all. That’s a total misrepresentation. I know of no evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, a variety of studies have shown that there has not been an “extraordinarily large” amount of severe weather. The weather has been generally normal, it’s been pretty much plain vanilla, for all kinds of foretold disasters (droughts, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, the usual suspects). Yes, we got a “Superstorm”, but the US has been hit by superstorms many times in the past.

    So … claiming that there has been an “extraordinarily large number of severe weather events” is just more of the standard line of bogus alarmism, only this time it’s from the Alarmist-In-Chief.

    Sigh …

    w.

    • David Springer

      Extreme events presumably include extreme cold. So by definition global warming must also include reducing the frequency and/or severity of extreme events too. Too bad there isn’t a reporter with access, cajones, and brains enough to ask the president if he agrees.

      Instead we get parrots parroting parrots all the way down.

      • David Spring said:

        “Extreme events presumably include extreme cold. So by definition global warming must also include reducing the frequency and/or severity of extreme events too…”
        _______

        Your logic doesn’t track. Extreme cold outbreaks can be as much a part of more energy in the Earth system as extreme heat waves. Alterations in planetary waves caused by changes in thermal gradients between equator and pole can lead to all sorts of extremes from the blocking events and higher amplitude jet stream patterns. Might want to follow more closely the research being done by Dr. Francis at Rutgers.

      • Remember when it was called “global warming”? And we were told that the warming would be greatest in the polar regions. Ergo, the number of extreme cold events should be reduced. You “realists” can’t have your cake and eat it too!

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Robert,

        You ought to do a bit more research about what happens when the polar vortex breaks down in the middle of winter. Very cold outbreaks at lower latitudes but warm at the pole. Odd, isn’t it?

      • David Springer

        Yes of course, Gates. If the average temperature of the globe is increasing it is not logical that there will be fewer killer frosts and milder winters. Global warming means global freezing too.

        /sarc

        You’re either an imbecile, a liar, or both. I’m going with both.

      • David Springer | November 20, 2012 at 9:32 am |
        … You’re either an imbecile, a liar, or both. I’m going with both.

        Joining Badfaith and Web in the gutter. Most disheartening.

  10. “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,” Obama stated.

    The President needs to get some new advisors on climate. Measurements show there has been no increse in global average temperature since the year 2000.

    “The first topic (of the Climate Dialogue) is the decline of Arctic sea ice”

    Owing to the large number of urban heat islands around the north Atlantic, I would expect there would be a permanent plume of warm ait over that region which would promote the melting of sea ice. If this were the case one would expect more melting of sea ice oner the North Atlantic than over the same latitude of the North Pacific..

  11. The country has changed. We’re not ever going back and that changes a lot of other things–e.g., this ain’t your grandfather’s science.

    • Not my grandfather’s science. Not my father’s science. Not my science. Not science!

      • Science is skeptical, always!

      • GCMs are Climatology’s $10,000 toilet seats. Climatology has been likened by non-Western academics to the ancient science of astrology. The EPA has become the IRS and EPA regulations have become a payroll tax. The Left’s vision of liberal Utopia has become the art of deciphering flickering shadows on the wall in Plato’s prison cave. A secular, socialist government that’s too big to fail has become sledgehammer in the hands of a heart surgeon.

  12. Well this is a different angle on ‘going emeritus.’

    Pretty funny too because what we’ve seen up to now is that it has been retirees who have been leading the rush for the UN exits and many have not been bashful about saying that no longer being a part of academia is the reason they are now finally able to tell the truth about the global warming hoax.

    • One of the brave exceptions was MIT’s Lindzen. But he’s now “emeritus”, too. Possibly accelerated by his views?

  13. Phillip Bratby

    “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions,” Belief obviously trumps facts for Obama.

  14. Chief Hydrologist

    seems not to be the right link – http://www.climatedialogue.com/

  15. Japan: there is something odd in the nearby Pacific

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm

    Do check it for yourself

    • Interesting but what are the possible theories? Or are they related to some other driver of these indices?

    • Hi Dennis
      Not even hypothesis.
      With due respect to Dr. Curry our charming hostess, I don’t think anyone knows how natural variability works or what the extent of it is; if so than even less can be concluded for the AGW.
      But let’s have a shot at it.
      On the http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
      illustration maps show tectonic fault (red line) and two major currents of the North Pacific, Kuroshio (warm current) and Oyashio (cold current). Relative strength of these currents determines if the N. Pacific and the lands of surrounding continents where lot of the glob temps records come from, are warmer or colder.
      It could be suggested that the tectonic movements have some effect on balance of these currents.
      So far so good.
      Now, for the magnetic field. Its generation and changes of its intensity deep inside the Earth’s (outer) core are even bigger mystery than the climate change.
      Movement of the tectonic plates (subduction see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/SubZone.jpg ) interferes with the magma flow further down. These disturbances in the flow propagate slowly through the dense magma affecting its thermal convection. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Outer_core_convection_rolls.jpg
      which is assumed to be the generator of the magnetic field.
      What about the 15 year delay?
      In the last wiki link there are some cylinders depicted. This appears to be a complex subject, if so inclined look up article by a JPL-NASA scientist and an Oxford professor

      http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19162/1/98-0417.pdf

      which considers mechanical disturbances propagation between the Earth’s core and lithosphere at various latitudes.
      Thus
      1. Tectonic movements affect balance of the two major N. Pacific currents (Kuroshio warm and Oyashio cold) and in doing so changes temperature across N. Hemisphere.
      2. The same tectonic movements affect magma flow, propagating slowly further down, where the magnetic field is generated; changes in the MF are then observed on the surface.
      There are number of experts and other ‘experts’ from the many fields of science, which may disagree, offer different more plausible ideas, or declare correlation spurious and the whole charabanc a nonsense.
      Have a nice weekend.

      • I am ok until this……”changes in the MF are then observed on the surface.” I am lost on the process. MF being Magnetic Field of Magma Flow? Thanks. For what its worth I am not sure if the correlation looks spurious, at least to this untrained eye.

      • I was running out of steam.
        Wikipedia: ‘The motion of the fluid is sustained by convection, motion driven by buoyancy. The temperature increases towards the center of the Earth, and the higher temperature of the fluid lower down makes it buoyant.’
        See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field (scroll down to Earth’s core and the geodynamo) So any ‘subduction’ interference with the normal convection would eventually reach area where the field is generated and presumably affect its intensity – e.g. faster movement stronger field. Any change in intensity at the core is almost instantaneously registered by geomagnetic stations around the world, but the signal strength is the most prominent at the nearest point at the surface. At two distant points magnetic intensity often is moving in opposite directions, most notable is the case of Hudson Bay compared to Central Siberia.
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm (right hand magnetic scale has values in reverse order)

  16. About the Arctic ice melt attribution, Dr Curry wrote:
    “My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range. Why such a ‘wishy washy’ statement with large error bars?”

    Would it not have been more honest and more accurate to state just: “I don’t know” ? Such guesses, expressed in pseudo-scientific jargon are meaningless and misleading.

    • This is hardly a skeptical assessment which means that so far they have not had a real skeptic. That humans are probably from 30 to 70% responsible is minimally skeptical, if that. Perhaps lukewarmers are as far as they will go, which is hardly a dialog with skeptics.

      • so you are certain the human role is less than 30%.
        very skeptical.
        50% percent minimizes your error when you know nothing.so unless you have something more than doubt the skeptical position is 50%

      • I am 99.9% sure that all of the Earth’s surface heat and atmospheric heat is generated by the sun. So to minimize the error in my skeptical position, I’m presuming that there is a 50% likelihood that any temperature change we see over time is due to a variation in solar irradiance. The remaining 50% I am dividing up equally between possible other causes: tectonic plate activity, ocean circulation, galactic rotation and anthropogenic causes. (I of course divide equally to minimize errors in my skeptical position). This leaves a value of 12.5% for anthropogenic causes: 6.25% for fossil fuels and 6.25% for land use changes. So as a skeptic, I attribute a value of 6.25% to the likelihood that burning fossil fuels is the reason for the temperature rise over the last century.

        How’s my math?

      • Mosher, first I know a great deal more than nothing. Second the claim was for a range, implying a distribution, so presumably this is not a simple measure of ignorance. Finally, I am not certain of anything but I am pretty sure the human role is less than 30%. It may well be zero. So yes I am very skeptical of AGW. At least you got that part right.

      • willb said:

        “I am 99.9% sure that all of the Earth’s surface heat and atmospheric heat is generated by the sun.”

        ____
        Then you’d be 100% incorrect. Isn’t that strange how someone can be 99.9% certain and still 100% incorrect?

      • R. Gates said:

        “Then you’d be 100% incorrect.”

        I’m 100% incorrect? Are you saying that none of the Earth’s surface heat and atmospheric heat is generated by the sun? Excuse me, but I’m skeptical of that claim.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        willb,

        You said “all” Earth’s surface and atmospheric heat was generated by the sun– which is 100% incorrect.

      • So, R. Gates, if the sun were to disappear, what does your fevered imagination tell you would happen to Earth’s surface temperature? To what temperature do you think it would settle?

      • “How’s my math?”

        the math isn’t the problem. It’s the logic that fails.

      • Hey Mosher, lolwot thinks your logic sucks.
        Btw, in case you missed it, my first comment was just meant to show Mosher’s argument to be a bit silly. But I don’t think he was really being serious anyway.

      • willb asks”

        “So, R. Gates, if the sun were to disappear, what does your fevered imagination tell you would happen to Earth’s surface temperature? To what temperature do you think it would settle?”
        ____

        The oceans would freeze over pretty rapidly if the sun just disappeared. We would get maybe 20 meter or more thick ice right to the poles. All surface life would die, yet some life in the oceans and deep in mines and caves would live from the geothermal heat of the Earth. The ice on the surface of the oceans would act to insulate the oceans and thus, the geothermal heat from the Earth would become extremely important as it would be the only source of heat on the planet. There is a good chance that there is moon much like this already in our solar system…possible Titan or Europa? A final important factor related to a sun-less Earth, would be whether or not Earth would keep its own moon as tidal fluxing from it would add a bit more energy to the Earth system.

        As far as surface temperatures on such a planet (given that the atmosphere would all but disappear), you would see temperatures hover very close to what we see on the outer planets of the solar system…right around -180C or so. You’d be much better off not being on the surface, but living deep in a mine, cave, or under the ice cap in the ocean.

      • > willb, You said “all” Earth’s surface and atmospheric heat was generated by the sun– which is 100% incorrect.

        So what is the correct figure – only 99% Earth’s surface and atmospheric heat is generated by the sun (the rest being from the earth’s core) ?

    • jacobress

      Judith Curry’s statement on Arctic sea ice is “scientific jargon” for “we really don’t know, but it’s unlikely to be caused by anthropogenic forcing”.

      You take all the data out there with error bars included and try to make some sense out of it (even if the data aren’t really giving you any kind of clear message).

      50% of 66% = 33% = “unlikely” (in IPCC jargon)

      So JC is really telling us that the data are sketchy but it is “unlikely” that the melt is anthropogenic.

      That’s how I read it.

      Max

      • No Max, the percentages do not multiply that way. The first is an attribution while the second is a confidence. You cannot multiply them to reduce the attribution.

      • R Gates
        You wrote.
        We also know with a high degree of certainty that the Arctic has not been ice free in many centuries

        The Arctic was ice free during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm period and many other warm periods over the past well bounded ten thousand years.
        We are currently in the warm phase of a natural cycle that that has been well bounded for ten thousand years.

      • The point is that there are BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors at play. The question is how much can be attributed to anthropogenic. My point is that it is unlikely to be 0 or 20%, and also unlikely to be 80 or 100%. Somewhere between 30 and 70% is where I think it lies, but I have left plenty of room in my estimate (with the ‘likely’ confidence level) to be wrong.

      • NOAA’s data for Pacific Ocean says not even 10%

        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm

        but then no one knows what is the climate change about anyway.

      • OK. I get it. “Between 30% and 70%” = 50%+/-20% is “likely” (more than 66%) to be “anthropogenic”.

        Max

      • Max, “OK. I get it. “Between 30% and 70%” = 50%+/-20% is “likely” (more than 66%) to be “anthropogenic”.”

        Let’s see, since Antrophogeneic green house gases versus natural was the initial comparison, 67% of Arctic ice melt would likely be due to those two with a +/-20% split in attribution to either. So the other 33% could be “other”.

        That “other” doesn’t get discussed much.

      • Cap’n –

        That “other” doesn’t get discussed much.

        I see it discussed a lot. One version of “other” gets discussed at places like WUWT (and sometimes here also), and another version of the “other” gets discussed at places like Neven’s blog.

      • There are reasonable arguments that all of the decline is natural so this liklihood range is not supportable. We do not even know that GW has a significant anthro component, much less Arctic ice changes.

      • Although at those places the “other” is generally thought to be larger than 33% likely.

      • Joshua, “Although at those places the “other” is generally thought to be larger than 33% likely.” There are plenty of thoughts but not much action on the “other”.

        Other, land use, dust from land use and erosion, ash from natural and anthropogenic fires, ice breaking to clear channels and large scale snow removal, would tend to be amplified by both natural and anthropogenic forcing. That makes pointing the blame a little more complicated.

      • Cap’n –

        Other, land use, dust from land use and erosion, ash from natural and anthropogenic fires, ice breaking to clear channels and large scale snow removal, would tend to be amplified by both natural and anthropogenic forcing. That makes pointing the blame a little more complicated.

        Gotcha. Yeah – haven’t seen those factors discussed much.

      • Although to be clear – the 33% in Judith’s reference is not those other factors – but the likelihood that anthropogenic or natural forcing are outside the 30%-70% range. My guess is that she would peg them at far less than 33% causative.

      • Joshua, “My guess is that she would peg them at far less than 33% causative.”

        My guess would be she doesn’t know or she would have picked a different number. That is kind of the point, the unknown unknowns doncha know.

      • Joshua, Actually the 1/3 make perfectly good sense and is totally consistent with her general position. CO2 forcing is only known to be worth about 1 to 1.5 C per doubling with that range mainly due to what surface is being impacted. Natural variability based on the instrumental period is only in the range of 0.2 to 0.4 C putting it in the same 1 to 1.5 C range if you extrapolate to a doubling. The underlying trend from pre-industrial, which could be natural or Anthropogenic, the “others” could be in the same range.

        If you are into parsimonious reasoning, that is about all you got.

      • Cap’n –

        Joshua, Actually the 1/3 make perfectly good sense and is totally consistent with her general position.

        Your characterization of the “other 33%” is entirely different than what she is referencing. Her 33% is the likelihood of the mixture of anthropogenic and natural attributions being more or less than the 20%-70% range. It is not a reference to those other factors you mention.

        Now she may, indeed, think that “other” factors contribute significantly to the ice melting – I haven’t read her say anything to that effect which would be kind of odd if she did think they were significant: She discusses attribution a lot, if she thought that other factors were significant I’d think she’d be talking about them. But that is basically something that lies outside of the discussion of her statement at the top of this mini-thread.

      • Joshua, think about what she said, not what anyone thinks she said,

        “5) What percentage of the recent decline would you attribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?

        In my essay, I state:
        My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range.”

        There is likely a 50% split between natural and anthropogenic forcing, with a +/-20% uncertainty on that split. 70/30 either way. She only has 67% confidence in that statement, the range could be larger than +/- 20%. You can’t draw anymore conclusions from that statement.

        I add my thoughts on the 33% uncertainty which I feel are consistent with her general position. Since there is only natural or not, the ultimate total would have to be 100%, but unlike natural, the not has other factors than just GHGs which either natural or not could amplify, creating the uncertainty.

        She made a statement, I added my thoughts.

      • sorry, ” She only has 67% confidence in that statement, the range could be larger than +/- 20%” “only has” should be “at least has”.

      • curryja-

        “The point is that there are BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors at play. … Somewhere between 30 and 70% … but I have left plenty of room in my estimate (with the ‘likely’ confidence level) to be wrong.”

        The above is good, clean statement as is that just got me thinking a little about a formal problem statement as we (in the US) enter a new phase of ‘debate’. Let me say that I think that a consensus formulation, under 500-1000 words in plain language, of the policy problem under debate would be a good start. (Not likely in my view.) If we can not do that we are not ready to start making policy.

        Estimates of contribution are necessary for debate, providing a handle on the scale of the problem. Hence they are frequently seen. And some approximate quantification such as the above is close to the core of problem statement. A couple of observations on the genre–just personal tastes–with the wider statement context.

        The simplicity of these breakdowns is double-edged, and I wonder whether such statements should carry a little more qualification. First, from a perception and policy perspective there is no parsing the difference between 30%, 50%, or 70%. In the common vernacular, ‘Ain’t likely to happen.’

        In addition, there are some important qualitative distinctions between natural and anthropogenic beyond relative contributions that are essential to any formulation of a ‘problem statement, and these should be pointed out at the same time. The direction of change in atmospheric loading (not effect) of different anthropogenic factors is positive–the rates may change but by their very nature are still positive. The qualitative aspects and behaviors of natural factors are of course more varied–natural loadings, extra-terrestrial factors, ‘control-ability’….

        Just a simple concise concensus formulating the salient aspects debate issue.

      • Does it really matter what the exact percentages are? We know with a very high degree of certainty that there is some natural variability and some anthropogenic forcing. We also know with a high degree of certainty that the Arctic has not been ice free in many centuries, well beyond any multi-decadal variability (though not perhaps beyond a Bond Event). So what we’re left with is the ability to say that natural variability and anthropogenic forcing are leading to the regime change we’re seeing in the Arctic. Furthermore, what you could figure out is if this regime change could have happened without both factors being present, or if the their interaction caused regime change. For example, if we know that the Atlantic currents flowing into the Arctic go through cycles of cold and warm, and that during the warm cycles the sea ice naturally trends downward (but never to an ice free condition) and that during this particular downtrend, the extra forcing from the accumulation of GHG’s has tipped the trend into a regime change whereby an ice free Arctic is going to occur in the next few decades (or years if you believe Maslowski & Wadhams). This ice free Arctic is now going to occur regardless of the next cold phase of the Arctic. Furthermore, related back to the discussion about the interaction of natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, it could well be the case that there is an interaction between the two such that the natural cycle is being influenced by anthropogenic forcing so that the next cool phase of the Atlantic is either delayed, not quite as cold, shorter in duration, etc.

        If there is an upside to the Arctic being so sensitive to Anthropogenic forcing, we won’t have to wait too terribly long to get some answers…

      • R. Gates, “Does it really matter what the exact percentages are?”

        It would be kinda nice to have a rough idea. Did you know, that in the late 1980s there was a step change in the temperature Arctic region? The slope of the diurnal temperature range reversed. The average Tmin in Iceland shifted from below zero to above zero. Between 1988/89 and 1998/99 there was only one NH SSW event recorded. 88/89 was the year that Scandinavian had the about 2 degree C step change. So for some odd reason, the period of most of the AGW, was also a period of low SSW events.

        Since we know exactly how much energy that is lost during SSW event and know exactly why there were so few during 88/89 to 98/99, we should be able to nail down a better estimate of how much is A and how much is N warming right? Or is there room for a tad of uncertainty?

      • CaptDallas,

        You said:

        “Since we know exactly how much energy that is lost during SSW event…”

        We do? Please lead me to the data or calculation of this. I have yet to find one expert to give me any estimate at all of the energy loss from any SSW event, NH or SH. This could be a very important addition to the calculation of the overall planetary energy balance.

        One additional note: You must be aware of the statistical association of SSW events with both ENSO and the QBO. See:

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028521.shtml

        http://www.sparc-climate.org/fileadmin/customer/6_Publications/Newsletter_PDF/39_SPARCnewsletter_Jul2012_web.pdf#page=17

        If, as seems to be the case, SSW events both respond to and cause changes to ENSO activity, then getting a handle on exactly how much energy they release to space would be crucial to closing the loop in our understanding of energy transport from ocean to atmosphere to space during these events.

        But again, if you have a calculation, paper, analysis or whatever that demonstrates how much energy is lost from the Earth system to space during a SSW event I’d be most interested to see it.

      • R. Gates, “But again, if you have a calculation, paper, analysis or whatever that demonstrates how much energy is lost from the Earth system to space during a SSW event I’d be most interested to see it.”

        There are a couple of papers that estimate regional impacts of SSW but none that I have seen that estimate SSW energy fully. But all the data is there for a reasonable estimate. There was only one event between 1988/89 and there have been 9 since 2000. Each event has a number of days of surface impact up to about 50, The regional temperature during those events is below normal and when there are no events, 88/89 to 98/99 surface temperatures would be above normal. You should be able to get that data together pretty easy, since an estimate is about the best you can hope for. Note that puts a fairly large amount of the GW in the NH during the 88/89 to 98/99 in the natural column after allowing for some Anthropogenic amplification.

        Then you could assume that GHGs does it all and wait for the AMO shift to surprise you.

        One thing you also might like to look into is why would they be related to ENSO? Since the 1998/99 was the mother of all SSW events, they could be related to energy distribution and occur in more than just the higher latitudes. That is a problem since that implies a non-uniform climate sensitivity, but since the NH is 40% land and the SH is 20% land, land has a different heat capacity than oceans, a non-uniform, non-linear “sensitivity” kinda makes sense, docha know.

      • captdallas,

        In looking at the actual data:

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/

        I’m not seeing the big gap that you’re talking about related to SSW events. In fact, the data and studies seem to show a steadily increasing frequency of these events over the longer term:

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009571.shtml

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3655.1

        And even, more interestingly, an association between the increased frequency of blocking events that Dr. Francis is studying and increased SSW events:

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038776.shtml

        In short, it seems that there really was not a let up in SSW events during the time frame you’re indicating, but if anything, a slowly increasing frequency and intensity. 2009 and 2012 had monstrously large SSW events, both of which split the polar vortex and caused a large outbreak of very cold weather in lower latitudes.

      • I believe that there is a 100% chance that anthropogenic factors are in play. I believe that there is a 100% chance that we don’t know what they all are and that we don’t know if they have tried to cool or tried to warm the earth. Except for CO2, 100% of the modern data is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years and it is therefore 100% likely that man has not pushed temperature or sea level or albedo or anything else outside the bounds. We have data that does show that to 100%.

      • The gap was mentioned in a science daily article referencing Geophysical Research Letters, Semjon Schimanke. They mention the gap, likely related to European not global SSW events. The 1988/89 shift was in iceland and Scandinavian, so I imagine the where is somewhat important. Sorry I don’t have a link to that paper. There was also a paper on US SSW events from 1958 to 1980. Some caused cold snaps of 4 to 6 C lasting for nearly a month if I remember correctly.

        I will check out your links here shortly.

      • R. Gates, I don’t, looks like an NH lull to me between 89/99 in the T anom. anyway. It may depend on the definition. One paper I saw had a +30C warming threshold for “events” and they tended to last at least 15 days with the longest over 50 days. The first recorded event was in 1952 and there are supposed to be 30 NH events since then or about one every two years. 2000, 01,and 02 all looked like pretty strong SSW period with 2009 being the one that caused the fish kill down here in the Keys.

        Wonder if you could Tom Saywer someone into doing an animation?

      • Captdallas,

        There was a very large one in 1992, and of course, the big one at the end of 1998’s El Nino, that set the stage for the ensuing large La Nina. What some people don’t recognize is the scale of these events nor their effect across the entire stratosphere and troposphere. When this heat is released from the top of the Arctic stratosphere you can see the effects ripple in cooling right down to the tropical stratosphere and an increase and southerly shift in the formation of thunderstorms over the equatorial Pacific. This effect is quite evident in the beginning of the 1999 La Nina period.

      • Gates, that is the UAH north pole lower stratosphere and than looks kinda like a lull in the 90s.

      • Gates, ” What some people don’t recognize is the scale of these events nor their effect across the entire stratosphere and troposphere.”

        I recognize the scale fer sure. I just am not particularly keen on the definitions of what is an event. The general shift in 1995 from stratospheric cooling to neutral is an indication to me of the global impact of the “events” But defining SSW events and not considering that the same type event on smaller scales but wider areas kinda devalues the impact.

      • captdallas,

        Thanks for the UAH chart. Source of data?

        Also, your comments about the lull in SSW events got me to looking a bit closer at the events leading up to the large El Nino in 1998 and then the large La Nina that followed. In looking at NH SSW events there really wasn’t a large one between early 2005 and late 2007. Now, those of us who have studied the “1998” El Nino know that the bulk of the actual El Nino activity actually occurred in 1997, even though the spike in tropospheric temperatures from this event occurred a few months later in 1998 as all that heat was removed from ocean to atmosphere and helped to make that year so warm in global surface temperatures. But back to the SSW relationship. We saw no real SSW event in the NH for almost 3 years– meaning that energy was being stored in the system from early 1995 to late 1997. Then, not coincidentally, at the peak of the 1997-98 El Nino, in late 1997 we got a moderate sized SSW event. The El Nino began to fade, (even thought heat was still being released to the troposphere) and then at the end of 1998 we got a monstrously large SSW event and a rather strong and large La Nino period began. Coincidence? I doubt it.

      • In my previous post, this sentence:

        “In looking at NH SSW events there really wasn’t a large one between early 2005 and late 2007.” should of course read:

        ” In looking at NH SSW events there really wasn’t a large one between early 1995 and late 1997.”

      • Gate, I had downloaded the UAH data from noaa and just threw that plot together. I was looking at downloading the gridded but that is a PITA without R experience and I don’t care to learn R at this stage.

        BTW, there appears to be a tad more natural variability going on, like a Bond Event in the offing instead of the run of the mill AMO shift. Interesting times.

      • captdallas said:

        ” What some people don’t recognize is the scale of these events nor their effect across the entire stratosphere and troposphere.”

        I recognize the scale fer sure. I just am not particularly keen on the definitions of what is an event.
        ______
        The exact definition is elusive because these events are so variable in their intensity, duration, and effect on the stratospheric polar vortex. By studying the data here very closely (as I have for many hours), you can get a feel for these events in seeing the large ones, moderate ones, and small ones. The largest usually have some major effect on the polar vortex whereas the smaller ones do not. The polar vortex and be simply displaced (causing severe cold in the direction of displacement) or completely shattered. (causing severe cold on both sides of the NH). I would suggest looking at the data, and getting a “feel” for what these events look like. Study a large NH event such as we saw in December of 1998, or January of 2009 and 2012. Study medium ones such as we saw in January 1995 or December 1997, and then compare those to the smaller ones such as we see saw in January 1991. When you start to think of these as large releases of energy from Earth system to space, and then relate them back to other events like outbreaks of cold in the NH or the beginning and ending of ENSO events, a very consistent pattern emerges.

      • Gates, yep it is a lot of energy. Seems like someone would have already set up an index of sorts.

      • captdallas,

        I have been in correspondence with a well known and frequently published researcher who recently (within the past year) released a paper on Earth’s energy balance. I was amazed to learn this researcher had very little knowledge of SSW’s. Here’s my most recent email to this researcher:
        ____
        Wow, really amazed that you’d not come across SSW’s in your work before. These are very large scale atmospheric events involving enormous amount of energy being advected both poleward and vertically into the atmosphere from troposphere into the stratosphere and mesosphere. They were first discovered in 1951 by Richard Scherhag and are the subject of much ongoing intense research. What no one has yet (as far as I know) determined is exactly how much energy is involved in one of these. They are certainly on the scale of the energy released from ocean to atmosphere during a good sized El Nino event, and in fact, there is an association between ENSO and SSW’s, along with the QBO and MJO. Here’s a few quick places to start:

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0194.1?journalCode=atsc

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3996.1

        http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/7243/2012/acpd-12-7243-2012-print.pdf

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3655.1

        And start reading on page 17 of this recent newsletter: http://www.sparc-climate.org/fileadmin/customer/6_Publications/Newsletter_PDF/39_SPARCnewsletter_Jul2012_web.pdf

        As the energy released from the Earth system during one of these (as seen in both the EP Flux and temperature data) is considerable, it seems remarkable to me that no one has yet included them in Earth’s energy budget calculations. Given that they occur every few winters and involve such large amounts of energy, it would seem that they might have some signficant impact on energy flux from Earth to space and might account for some portion of the so called “missing” heat.

        Once you get a handle on what these SSW events are all about, and how truly large scale they are, I think you might get as excited about them as I have for the potential they offer in filling in some missing pieces in the overall energy budget of the Earth system. I look forward to hearing your perspective on them once you have time to research them a bit more.

        Best regards
        ______
        My question: How can you do a relatively accurate calculation of Earth’s energy balance without taking into account these major atmospheric events?

      • Max,

        50% of 66% = 33% = “unlikely” (in IPCC jargon)

        Another stunner, Max.

        So JC is really telling us that the data are sketchy but it is “unlikely” that the melt is anthropogenic.

        And yet another.

        Here’s a chance for you to show some accountability, and deal with your incorrect analysis. You might start by explaining what led you to your erroneous analysis — in spite of you having no doubt many times read Judith say things in direct contrast to your characterization of her views.

      • Josh

        It’s corrected. You can go back under your rock.

        Max

      • No Max – it wasn’t corrected. You completely misread Judith and completely skewed what she said – into a form that is completely unrecognizable if you have ever read anything she said about Acrtic ice.

        In fact, your statement of:

        So JC is really telling us that the data are sketchy but it is “unlikely” that the melt is anthropogenic.

        not anything related to what Judith said. Your attribution there is an either/or frame – and Judith obviously does not look at the attribution in such a manner.

        This is like your completely incorrect statements about what Muller said. When I asked you to explain how you could have been so wrong even though you no doubt had read what Muller had to say – you ducked rather than showed accountability.

        I’ll ask you again – what led to your strange interpretation of what Judith said?

      • Joshua

        Improve your reading (or observational) skills.

        David Wojick corrected my false interpretation.

        I responded with the correct interpretation.

        Judith added a few words of explanation

        It was all over and resolved, Joshua, before you even chimed in.

        Max

        PS I’ve posted some stuff on the early 20th century Arctic warming (EAW) and sea ice decline, which might interest you. It pretty much confirms Judith’s conclusion that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the attribution of the current Arctic sea ice decline.

      • Max:

        We’re going ’round in circles here. On last try.

        You have yet to explain how you could read Judith’s statement and offer an interpretation that is completely inconsistent with what she said. David corrected your mathematical error, but not your errors in thinking.

        Judith made a statement about the ratio of anthropogenic to natural attribution. Her statement necessarily rests on an understanding that it is certainly likely that a significant amount of the cause for the melting is anthropogenic. And from that, you came up with:

        So JC is really telling us that the data are sketchy but it is “unlikely” that the melt is anthropogenic.

        Not only is your statement illogical (the notion that “the melt” is either anthropogenic or not is a false dichotomy), it also is basically unrelated to Judith’s statement.

        So the question is what would cause you to state that Judith was stating something unrelated to what she stated.

        This is very similar to how you stated that Muller said something he didn’t say.

        It is an interesting phenomenon – if you care to share information on how it came about, it might be interesting. Your choice, of course.

      • On the attribution of the recent Arctic sea ice decline, it appears that there is a lot of uncertainty in the estimates.

        To understand this better, it probably makes sense to look at earlier periods of sea ice decline.

        On the climatedialogue.org site where Dr. Curry’s statement was posted, I posted some links to a statement by Dr. Igor Polyakov, who coauthored an earlier Russian study on the early 20th century Arctic warming and sea ice decline, from ~1920 to ~1940 (EAW)

        http://seagrant.uaf.edu/news/00ASJ/08.30.00_MeltingIcecap.html

        “Dr. Igor Polyakov is a physical oceanographer at the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks. He says the open water tourists saw is more the result of wind and ocean currents than climate change. He also says sea ice thickness varies according to large-scale ocean-atmosphere oscillations that take decades to unfold.

        POLYAKOV: “We found a 60- to 70-year cycle with many Arctic parameters, such as surface temperature, air pressure, and ice thickness variability. And we believe this signal comes from the North Atlantic and is induced by very slow anomalies in the circulation in the North Atlantic. We believe that this cycle is very important for the Arctic environment, because all major parameters show this slow variability.”

        There is also a 2009 paper by Dr. Arnd Bernaerts on the EAW:

        http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/past-arctic-warming-also-created-by-currents/

        “How is the EAW explained today

        Although 90 years have passed since the earlier Arctic Warming (EAW) commenced, it seems that the issue is still one of the most puzzling climatic anomalies of the 20th century (Bengtsson, 2004:4055), and there are many questions not answered yet. Instead the matter is often sidelined by regarding it as:
        • Natural variability is the most likely cause (Bengtsson, 2004:4045);
        • We theorize that the Arctic warming in the 1920s/1930s was due to natural fluctuations internal to the climate system (Johannessen, 2004:341)
        • The temperature anomalies are due primarily to natural variability in the weather system (Overland, 2008:81).”

        And a 2006 study by Chylek on the early 20th century warming in Greenland, which states

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml

        “We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.”

        And, finally, the temperature record at Illulissat, Greenland clearly shows this EAW (in fact it was greater than the current warming at that station):

        It appear to me that this earlier warming period should be studied in more detail in order to give a better clue to what is causing the current Arctic sea ice decline.

        Max

      • Tony Brown is looking at historical sea ice records during this period, stay tuned.

      • Max,

        See my post above regarding the level of “uncertainty” in the decline of the Arctic sea ice. If one is looking for exact percentages of attribution, yes, there is some uncertainty, but if one is wondering whether or not there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the fact that anthropogenic forcing is playing some role in the changes going on in the Arctic (of which the decline in sea ice is only one) then no, there is not a high degree of uncertainty. We can in fact state the exact opposite, that with a very high degree of certainty (>90%) that anthropogenic forcing is involved in the climate regime change being see across the Arctic.

      • Gates, you can state anything you like but that is not we. My view is that there is zero confidence that humans have anything to do with the arctic ice decline, as it may well be entirely natural. Factor that into your “we can state.” Nor is there any evidence of a regime change, just a downward trend over a few decades. Perfectly normal for climate. Your hyperbole is showing.

      • David W.,

        There is a name for those who continue to deny the facts. Your insistence that there is no evidence to support an anthropogenic component to the current Arctic climate change is what is truly “hyperbole”. There is evidence in the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and of course cryosphere. Natural variability alone, on any time scale, is not enough to account for the changes.

      • R. Gates

        An example of “an argument from ignorance”:

        Natural variability alone, on any time scale, is not enough to account for the changes [in Arctic sea ice extent since 1979].

        But there was apparently a similar change in Arctic sea ice extent from ~1920 to ~1940, when there was hardly any AGW, yet the Arctic warming was quite similar to the current warming there (a period known as the “early 20thC Arctic warming”, or EAW). (Polyakov 2005, Chylek 2006, Berearts 2009 – see my post #268410 above)

        Better than an “argument from ignorance”</em ("we can only explain it if w assume…") would be an “argument from evidence”.

        But first you have to figure out what caused the EAW.

        Max

      • Max said:

        “But there was apparently a similar change in Arctic sea ice extent from ~1920 to ~1940…”

        _____
        The operative word would be “apparently”. There was a certainly some dip in Arctic sea ice extent during part of this period, but it seems some are wanting to exaggerate the extent and magnitude of this dip. It certainly was nothing close to what we are seeing today. For a good reference on the past few hundred years of Arctic sea ice, I would go with sources such as Polyak:

        http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf

        If you study the charts, you’ll see the dip in this period 1920-194(but it is nothing really similar to what we have occurring today.

      • “The operative word would be “apparently”. There was a certainly some dip in Arctic sea ice extent during part of this period, but it seems some are wanting to exaggerate the extent and magnitude of this dip. It certainly was nothing close to what we are seeing today.”

        Apparently you don’t know what the word, certainly , means.

      • gbaikie,

        You’re right, I should have said:

        “There might have been some dip in sea ice during this period…but nothing similar to today…”

      • POLYAKOV: “We found a 60- to 70-year cycle with many Arctic parameters, such as surface temperature, air pressure, and ice thickness variability. And we believe this signal comes from the North Atlantic and is induced by very slow anomalies in the circulation in the North Atlantic. We believe that this cycle is very important for the Arctic environment, because all major parameters show this slow variability.”

        I wonder if that Arctic “signal” correlates with the ocean temperatures along western Europe and Scandinavia, as I believe the Norwegian current brings the warming from the Gulf Stream to all three areas.

      • R. Gates
        Natural variability alone, on many time scales, has accounted for changes that match and exceed what we see now. Look at the data. To say that we are outside the range of historical data is not supported by any data. Only CO2 exceeds the bounds of the past ten thousand years. Of all of earth’s history, the modern million years has extremely low CO2 compared with many periods before.

      • Joshua

        Just so you can crawl back under your rock on the Arctic sea ice statement of Dr. Curry, here is the chronological sequence:

        6:34am – I make an erroneous interpretation of her statement
        6:47am – David Wojick corrects me
        7:35am – Judith Curry adds an explanation
        7:52am – I respond: “OK. I got it…”
        —————————————————————————-
        8:08am – Then, after it has already been resolved, you chime in
        9:05am – I explain to you that it’s already been corrected
        9:10am – You keep harping on a long-resolved issue
        9:52am – I explain to you again that the issue has long been resolved

        Got it now?

        End of story.

        Max

    • David Springer

      100% certainty of 50% anthropogenic, 50% natural +-50% margin of error.

      That’s another way of saying what she said.

      Yet another way would be “I don’t know.”

    • David Springer

      If a doctor told me “there’s a 30% to 70% you have cancer and I’m 66% confident of that” I’d fire him or her.

      Curry’s a doctor, right?

      • David Springer

        Yeah. But (late-summer) Arctic sea ice isn’t cancer.

        In fact, it’s irrelevant (even to the polar bears).

        Max

    • I don’t think attribution makes much sense in this case because of the positive feedback in Arctic sea-ice loss. How do we count the part that is lost because the previous year had less ice? Is that natural? At some point, we are consigned to a loss of all ice regardless of which fraction of the initial loss is anthropogenic. Perhaps the anthropogenic fraction was the small amount needed to trigger the runaway feedback.

  17. Of course, the guesses of the other two participants, (stating that most of the melt was anthropogenic) were even more baseless and misleading.

    • Indeed, given that GW stopped over a decade ago there is no clear connection with the recent ice losses, much less with AGW. This is overwhelming speculation disguised as science. Hopefully the CD comments will make this clear.

      • In nonpolitical sciences this loss of correlation would be deemed significant. Is it evem mentioned in the CD expert dialog?

      • David W. inaccurately said:

        “Indeed, given that GW stopped over a decade ago ..”

        Why this persistence in inaccuracy? Why the conflation of GW with only near-surface temperatures? Why this short-term perspective on a long-term forcing? Why the denial of the dramatic changes seen in the Arctic and the refusal to admit at least a partial anthropogenic cause?

      • I do not believe the Levitus ocean warming model estimates, nor the surface statistical model estimates for that matter. They are statistical jokes in progress as both are contradicted by actual observations, where these overlap, argo and UAH. So you socalled facts are nonfacts to me. Hence our differences.

      • What’s the inaccuracy? The near surface temperature (anomaly) is by definition THE GW index. No positive trend means no GW (whatever length, 20, 30 years?). Are you saying if the temperature indices are flat for 30 years or more (let’s say in 2020/25), you will still believe in high CS (to CO2)? Dramatic changes is only in your mind, why the denial of climate change? There’s no need to ‘admit’ any global human cause, without evidence.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Edim,

        GHG warming of the planet is an issue of energy balance in be system, not just near surface temperatures. The low heat capacity and low thermal inertia of the troposphere makes it a very poor choice to measure a long term imbalance in Earth’s energy system. But you know this…or should.

      • Yes and that was one of the skeptics’ points (that it’s the internal energy of the system not the temperature), but when the temperatures were still rising warmists ignored the point.

        So, you admit that even after 30 years of flat temperatures, you would still believe in AGW? Not that I’m surprised. But it will not work. The only thing that can save the AGW story is further warming, and fast. I wouldn’t bet on any warming in the next decades. The scene is set for cooling.

      • Gates,

        https://picasaweb.google.com/118214947668992946731/HelpingTheHandicapped#5812161755036579266

        That chart is plot of eddy heat flux for 45 to 75 north and south in 1998. There should be a way to “normalize” that data set so that more can be done with it in comparison to SST. Remember the Antarctic has a tight convergence and the Arctic wanders quite a bit with PDO, AMO, NAO, AO, QBO all the Os :)

      • The ocean heat content has increased and the global land temperature, especially northern continents have warmed during this period. These both have a likely effect on the Arctic sea-ice decline. You may think nothing has happened in 17 years, but this would mean you were asleep/blind while these things were happening.

      • Jim D.,

        The refusal by some to accept the increasingly obvious fact that ocean heat content has indeed been rising quite consistently over not just the past 10 or 15 or 20 years, but the past 50 years will prove to be short-sighted for many. This additional energy in the oceans has all sorts of implications for not just the Arctic, but general climate and weather over the short and long term. The wise are studying those implications and others are in denial. Such has been the way of human history for thousands of years.

      • Yes, it is called taking all the facts into account. Skeptics appear somewhat blind to inconvenient truths, and don’t even discuss them hoping they will go away if nobody takes notice.

      • On the contrary I reject this data on the basis of detailed analysis, something I suspect you have not done. Skeptics do the hard work.

        More generally, until alarmists seriously consider natural variability and expain it away it will stand in the road of your agenda. Your hand waving does not budge it.

      • R. Gates, “The refusal by some to accept the increasingly obvious fact that ocean heat content has indeed been rising quite consistently over not just the past 10 or 15 or 20 years, but the past 50 years will prove to be short-sighted for many.”

        Isn’t limiting the start of OHC increase to 50 years short sighted? The increase in OHC likely started in 1900 or before. There was a change in the rate of uptake circa 1946 with acceleration in the uptake rate in circa 1955. Then in circa 1985 the rate started declining. Picking the maximum rate of uptake is a bit odd doncha know.

  18. Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    Add your thoughts here… (optional)

  19. “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,” Obama stated

    A little more than 10 years ago (2001), IPCC issued its TAR report.

    In it, IPCC predicted (or “projected”) warming for the next decades at a rate of 0.15 to 0.3 degC per decade = 0.225+/-0.075 deg C.

    In actual fact, the HadCRUT3 record shows us that it cooled at a rate of around 0.08 degC per decade.

    There are two possibilities here:

    – Either President Obama has been lied to by an adviser and fell for it
    – Or he knows the truth and is deliberately lying

    Which is it, and how can it be corrected ASAP to keep the most powerful man in the world from spreading false information and looking like a fool?

    Max

  20. Mark B (number 2)

    Mr President said.”We do know that there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.”

    However, here in the UK, there has not been anything like “extreme weather”. It has just been wet and dreary for most of the year, with the exception of a particularly warm and dry early spring. The overall temperature this year has shown absolutely no extremes. It is surprising how few strong gales have occurred this year. In fact, I can’t think of any.
    Anyway, mild wet weather is normal for this country, due to it being an island in the Atlantic. So we have had a high incidence of normal weather this year.
    I think that the President is making generalizations for the world based on what appears to be happening in the USA. But this is a common mistake made by Americans in general, on a variety of subjects.

    • Mark B #2

      It is true that (US) Americans often confuse US data with global data, so we can’t blame President Obama too much for that.

      But he’s even got the US extreme weather data wrong and the global temperature data totally screwed up.

      And guess what?

      It’s all in the direction of making “global warming” look worse.

      He’s either got some very bad advisers or a hidden agenda. (Or both?)

      Which is it?

      Max

  21. Joe's World(progressive evolution)

    Judith,

    What are you doing up so late to post this late at night?
    The old brain pan won’t let you sleep?

  22. The president is technically right. The rate of global warming has increased very slightly from what it was 10 years ago. 10 years ago the trend from 1980 was 0.205C/decade. Today it’s 0.209C/decade

    • Although the accurate statement, considering the uncertainty, would be to say the rate of global warming is consistent with what it was 10 years ago. Ie no sign of acceleration or slowdown.

    • Lolwot

      Apparently Michael Mann has “gotten the word” about the pause in warming (bold by me).

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract

      it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings.

      You need to get up-to-date, lolwot (as does President Obama).

      Max

      • Well this is pretty amazing, really. I have been called a ‘denier’ for saying the same things. Maybe this will become the ‘new normal.’

      • That’s, however, exactly what Foster and Rahmstorf have concluded in their paper.

      • Pekka

        Which paper?

      • dikranmarsupial

        Judging from the abstract that is what Kaufmann et al conclude as well. The abstract says that “Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.” Which I take to mean that the net effect of the forcings (solar, GHG and aerosols) is small over the timescale considered relative to the effects of ENSO. In other words, it is the sort of thing you would expect to see occasionally, even if long term AGW continues unabated, due to natural variability (c.f. Easterling and Wehner).

      • Pekka, “That’s, however, exactly what Foster and Rahmstorf have concluded in their paper.”

        Since the F&R lags look a little uncertain, wouldn’t that be implied instead of concluded? I have always had a problem with that. The measurable lag of solar is about 4.5 years, a solar cycle is about 11 years, shorter solar cycles appear to have a large impact than longer. Seems to me that F&R might have missed something. If they concluded that solar, ENSO and sulfates together can cause a pause, they should have concluded that solar, ENSO and sulfates could amplify warming. I don’t recall them highlighting that or the odd situation where not every solar cycle has the same impact.

      • Capt.Dallas,

        I would say that this is one way of expressing the conclusion of the paper. Of course that’s not a proof that the conclusion is correct as the analysis cannot prove that the background trend has proceeded linearly in time over the whole period.

        Thus what they really show is that the temperature history over the period 1979-2010 is consistent with the hypothesis that the average surface (or lower troposphere) temperature is a linear combination of
        – trend (constant rate in time)
        – total solar irradiance (TSI) with lag of 0-1 month
        – Multivariate El Nino Index (MEI) with lag of 2-5 months
        – aerosol optical thickness (AOD) that describes volcanic influence with delay of 5-7 months
        – rather weak additional noise or unaccounted factors (of the order of 0.05 C in annual averages)

        Consistency is not a proof of correctness. In particular it’s clear that a constant trend cannot be true over extended periods. Going just a few years back in time contradicts such a trend.

        The 2011 PNAS paper of Kaufmann, Mann, Kauppi and Stock presented similar conclusions as have presented also Lean and Rind (2008 and 2009). The view that solar activity has played a significant role and that ENSO related phenomena have affected the observed temperature trends seems to be main stream and certainly not unexpected from Mann who was one of the authors of these papers.

      • Judith there is a big difference between you saying it and somebody on the team saying it. At least in their mind. When you say it its wrong or misleading or makes no sense or serves the evil forces of denial or makes no sense. When they say the same thing.. well its pal reviewed.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Of course it is utterly inconsistent with ARGO – http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf – and CERES – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

        Mind you the net CERES is all SW – which can’t be right.

      • If Foster and Rahmstorf can conclude the the hiatus in warming could be down to an unique alignment of forcings, could the 1970-1998 warning not also be down to some unique alignment ?

    • Lolwot

      You cannot compare GMST trends having different periods. That is comparing apples and oranges.

      Here is the right way to compare two-ten year periods:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012

      • “You cannot compare GMST trends having different periods.”

        yeah you can.

        C/decade. The data simply doesn’t support the claim that global warming has slowed down or stopped since 10 years ago.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Of course if you have a theory – it all makes perfect sense.

        ‘Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”’ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        Expect another decade or three of no warming at least.

      • Chief, see the Foster and Rahmstorf paper. El Ninos and La Ninas matter, but they show warming is still happening and hasn’t stopped.

        PDO had a cooling impact in recent decades. That’s spent.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo

      • Lolwot,

        I don’t think that you formulation is correct. What Foster and Rahmstorf show is that the plateau does not contradict the presence of a constant background trend in the temperature of the period studied. That leaves the plateau as a plateau, i.e. a period without warming (defined as an increase in average surface or lower troposphere temperature). The paper doesn’t show anything about warming defined in some other way as it studies only the temperature time series.

        It’s better to have some care in use of concepts in this kind of argumentation.

      • The Foster and Rahmstorf paper strongly contradicts the notion of “Expect another decade or three of no warming at least”

      • lolwot

        Pull your head out of the sand.

        You only look like a sillier “denier” when you close your eyes to the observed fact that there is a current “pause” in global warming (in fact, an observed cooling of 0.08C over the past decade).

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012

        You should actually be very happy that this is so, in view of your apparent fear of global warming.

        Instead, in your doomsday gloom, you simply deny what all those thermometer out there are telling you (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots).

        Rejoice!

        Max

      • Global warming from 1975 to 1997 (green line) has continued (dashed green line

        You focus on the short-term trends (the pink lines), which are irrelevant.

      • Lolwot,

        They may think so (and they may be right), but their paper doesn’t show that. The expectation that the warming resumes is based on other arguments.

        Such an statistical analysis cannot show that the constant background trend has continued to the last few years of the range as it’s certainly easy to create models for temperature development which agree essentially as well with the data but with a stop in the trend.

        They have a good argument against claims that the observations contradict a warming background trend that continues to 2010, but they cannot prove the constancy of the trend up to that year.

      • “They may think so (and they may be right), but their paper doesn’t show that.”

        It does. The paper argues that warming in the last decade has been offset by a dive in ENSO and solar. To continue to offset warming for the next decade, let alone longer, requires ENSO and solar to both continuing diving according to the FR paper. This isn’t credible. La Nina frequency cannot get much higher, if at all and the fall in solar activity is reversing rather than continuing.

      • lolwot, “The paper argues that warming in the last decade has been offset by a dive in ENSO and solar. ” Argues with simplistic choices of lag times. There is a 4 to 5 year solar lag and that lag is long enough to be influence by the next cycle. That is likely why shorter solar cycles appear to have a greater impact on SAT than longer cycles regardless of the peak value of the cycles.

        It is a chaotic system with dozens of decay curves to consider. F&R produced a simplistic analysis with convenient results.

      • They make one more assumption: The rest is linear in time. Without that additional assumption they cannot conclude much anything about the very last years or future. Making this assumption is the additional input that I refer to.

        To be more specific. An alternative that would also agree with the data would some longer term variability, which could also be used to fit data from the years before 1979. Such a variability could be close enough to linear rise over that period, but rise less during the very last years and not at all after 2010. It’s actually a real possibility that some longer term variability of that kind is present.

        My personal guess is that the trend that they expect to resume is really there with a strength not very different from their fit, but this is a judgment based on other arguments, not on that analysis alone.

      • Capt.Dallas,

        The lag is not 4-5 years, it’s 0-1 months for solar (TSI) and 2-7 months for the other factors.

        I have been wondering why you overemphasize the role of lag, now I see the reason.

      • Pekka, the lag F&R use is just months while there is documentation of a 4 to 5 year solar lag. They make it appear that the only lags of any concern are the ones they used. That is an odd assumption that produced convenient results.

        So basically they are only considering the long wave, short lag, when the deeper SW ocean absorption, longer lag, also has a significant impact. That is not very comprehensive in my opinion.

      • Capt. Dallas,

        For a fit they don’t need to worry about anything that doesn’t technically enter in doing the fit.

        Proceeding from a fit to improved understanding of the mechanisms depends on all previous knowledge on the processes. All new information must be combined with the old to reach a refined new interpretation.

        It’s true that one weakness of the Foster and Rahmstorf paper and the other similar papers is that many phenomena have been identified previously and disregarding those makes it difficult to understand, how the fit can be as good as it is – except by overfitting.

        Even so the paper presents a strong argument against the claim that the plateau presents strong evidence against main stream views on AGW.

      • Pekka, “Even so the paper presents a strong argument against the claim that the plateau presents strong evidence against main stream views on AGW.”

        The object should be objectivity, not throwing together a simplistic analysis to possibly support an agenda. If they had any real curiosity, they would have put together a meaningful paper instead of that drivel.

      • What FR did was adjust for some fairly obvious factors that influence global temperature on short timescales, such as the 11-year solar cycle and ENSO.

        The reason climate skeptics bitterly oppose the kind of analysis FR11 did is because the results of any such analysis to factor in eg the solar cycle, are inconvenient to climate skeptics. Here’s why with an example:

        HadCRUT4 shows a trend of 0.05C/decade cooling since 2002.

        If the solar minimum caused 0.25C/decade cooling since 2002 and observations only show 0.05C/decade cooling, then the only way that adds up is if something else induced a 0.2C/decade warming effect…

        It doesn’t have to be as high as 0.25C of course. Even 0.15C cooling would require that something else (*cough* AGW) to have had a warming influence since 2002.

        And this is why climate skeptics really really don’t like this line of discussion. Because the only way they can negate that implication is to argue 0.25C/decade cooling from solar max to minimum is far too high.

        Climate skeptics simply don’t have the tools to argue that. Through years of exaggerating the role of the Sun on climate and playing up uncertainty, they have no means to argue 0.25C cooling from the solar minimum is unrealistic.

        So when an analysis like FR11 actually bothers to factor in the cooling influence of the solar minimum, there’s nothing wrong with that. The reason climate skeptics push back against such an analysis is simply because the results are inconvenient for them.

      • Capt.Dallas,

        You are probably right in implying that the paper was written more to counter the skeptic arguments than to improve understanding on the Earth system. I do, however, consider it as a valid paper for that purpose. To the extent it has scientific value it differs little from Lean and Rind (2008), except that the period Foster and Rahmstorf studied is much shorter and the results therefore less informative.

        They added a few years and they repeated the analysis for five different time series rather than only one used by Lean and Rind. All this added little of real scientific value – but clearly applicable to the debate.

      • lolwot, “What FR did was adjust for some fairly obvious factors that influence global temperature on short timescales, such as the 11-year solar cycle and ENSO.”

        lolwot, that paper is little more than an oped piece. If there is an obvious a longer lag, it should have considered that lag. If they adjust for ESNO, Solar and Aersols for 1980 to 2010, then they should have compared that to 1910 to 1940 if they were serious about producing something of lasting value.

        This rush to publish, oped, peer reviewed drivel is not science.

      • “If there is an obvious a longer lag”

        What do you mean? They included a solar cycle lag in the analysis which they derived from the data.

        What have skeptics done to account for the cooling impact of the solar minimum?

        Answer this one simple question if you can: Could the recent solar minimum have caused 0.25C cooling since 2002? Yes or no.

      • “If they adjust for ESNO, Solar and Aersols for 1980 to 2010, then they should have compared that to 1910 to 1940 if they were serious about producing something of lasting value.”

        The analysis covered 1980 to 2010 because satellite records start around 1980 and because they were testing the approximately linear warming over recent decades.

        Demanding they cover 1910 to 1940 is just an excuse to avoid having to contemplate what they found about the recent warming period.

      • lolwot, “What do you mean? They included a solar cycle lag in the analysis which they derived from the data.”

        That they did, A lag. The SW energy absorbed by the oceans does not produce A lag. The first meter produces A lag, The next 10 produces A different lag, the next 100 produces Another different lag. The 10 plus meter lag is on the order of 4 to 5 years with longer lags quite possible.

        The oceans are like a battery charging, the atmosphere is like your night light, load only.

      • They tested the temperature data statistically to find the net lag. Too bad the result is inconvenient for you, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t science.

      • lolwot, “Demanding they cover 1910 to 1940 is just an excuse to avoid having to contemplate what they found about the recent warming period.” I am demanding they do anything. They are all growed up and haired over, they can do what they wish. If they wish to be scientifically complete, they would have done more.. If they wish to publish BS, they done a good job.

      • Is there a solar influence?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:36/from:1950/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.001/mean:36

        Hard to tell, isn’t it? Maybe it could be considered that possibly there might just be a little contributing to the last solar minimum by the skeptics? They used to like solar influences, but now have deliberately refused to even discuss it.

      • Exactly when the subject comes up they now pretend the solar impact is delayed by decades or some such BS just so they don’t have to address the pittance of cooling the deep solar minimum they had been talking up has produced.

        Typically they try to divert attention from the subject by eg appealing to red herrings like the 1910-1940 period.

      • If delays are long enough solar would have a cumulative impact.

      • This paper:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract

        “Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.”

        Says there’s a solar influence and it swamped all the CO2 forcing at its maximum and all the numerous positive feedbacks. Some knob.

      • Says there’s a solar influence and it temporarily swamped all the CO2 forcing.

      • Yes, temporarily is the word. I keep saying that by 2020 we will know. The scene is set for cooling and warmists desperately need warming (roll on the next El Nino!), and a lot, and fast. The divergence will be spectacular.

      • Edim, temporarily, like in the past few solar minima (as my graph showed). Perhaps this time will be the charm, you say.

      • Jim, we’re talking about the longer-term minimum, not the minimum between the 11-year cycles. SC 23 was weak, SC24 seems to be even weaker, that’s the minimum.

      • Edim, if you are predicting a Maunder-type Minimum, that may have a forcing impact of 0.5 W/m2 which is about a third of the CO2 forcing so far and a tenth of what is expected by 2100. A dent, yes, but not much of one.

      • Jim, all speculations IMO, without the evidence. What we know is that the periods of lower solar activity (Maunder, Dalton, Spörer, Wolf…) do cause colder periods (advancing glaciers for example) and vice versa.

      • And their relative magnitude to what we have now is no mystery either.

    • The president is technically right. The rate of global warming has increased very slightly from what it was 10 years ago. 10 years ago the trend from 1980 was 0.205C/decade. Today it’s 0.209C/decade

      Although the accurate statement, considering the uncertainty, would be to say the rate of global warming is consistent with what it was 10 years ago. Ie no sign of acceleration or slowdown.

      Amazing how little difference the lack of warming in 16 years makes to the ‘technical’ argument. I guess Hell first has to first freeze over before the .politically-motivated will acknowledge any change.

  23. I just looked at the CD site. Unfortunately one has to scroll through all of the supposedly on topic comments, of which there are already a great many, to find the link to the so-called off topic comments. Every comment pointing out that there is no skeptic on the panel is classed off topic. So is every comment criticizing the opening topic description. Even worse perhaps those comments which raise well known skeptical scientific arguments on the topic are classed as off topic. This is clearly not a good start. If this pattern continues then CD is simply a false representation of the scientific debate.

    • Agreed, some of these should not have been relegated to ‘off topic.’ i found it interesting that Eli and Stoat landed in off topic also.

      • That was only proper, since what Eli wrote that landed off topic, was an off topic, reply to an off topic fallacious claim that the Mauna Loa CO2 record was contaminated by emissions from the volcano and another (but more interesting) red herring.

        As the Rabett wrote at the end of that comment,

        It is conceivable that this comment will not be posted, so it goes, but I would point out to the moderators that a similar inattention to reality and a favoring of obviously unfounded opinions by posters and commentators lead rather quickly to the irrelevance and later end of Nature’s climate science blog.

        Stoat’s comment does not appear to be in the off topic pile and indeed, it is not off topic.

      • I wager that you cannot and will not ever write a comment that is both cogent and on topic. We are used to the rabbit turds. dont stop dropping them.

      • David Springer

        Writing in the third person is indicative of pathologic personality disorder. You ought to get that checked.

      • David Springer

        Oops. Sorry.

        The Rabbett ought to get that checked.

        LOL – I kill me sometimes!

      • Hmm. Maybe that explains the short lines at the supermarket. Not a bug, a feature!:)

  24. lolwot

    You need to check the data out there

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/plot/none

    As you can see the 10-year period since 2002 has shown cooling at a linear rate of about -0.08C per decade, while the previous 10-year period showed warming at a rate of around +0.3C per decade.

    It’s always best to check out the data before you shoot off a claim (that turns out to be false).

    Max

    • Global warming didn’t start in 1992. No-one would be so silly to claim that. Even David Rose of the Daily Mail admits the recent global warming started in 1980.

      10 years ago the trend from 1980 was 0.205C/decade. Today it’s 0.209C/decade. Quite clearly there’s no sign global warming has stopped.

  25. Michael Mann (co-author)

    Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract

    It is good that the pause in global warming is being acknowledged in published papers.

    Why has not the president heard about it?

  26. With respect to Climate Dialogue, there is an excellent discussion on WUWT, and my comments are reproduced in full on the Off Topic part of Climate Dialogue. I am prepared to wait for the next topic before I finally pass judgement as to how level the playing field is that this blog is going to establish. However, I am not hopeful. The major issue, as I see it, is how they choose experts. The usual scientific publications are, basically, no-go places for climate skeptics; Roy Spencer is an exception. So skeptics publish on line. If publication in peer reviewed magazines is a requirement to be classified as an expert, then the playing field will never be level.

    The one aspect that is encouraging is from http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2012/pbl-knmi-and-crok-launch-climate-discussion-platform-climatedialogueorg
    @@@
    ClimateDialogue.org is the result of a request by the Dutch parliament to facilitate the scientific discussions between climate experts representing the full range of views on the subject. It is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
    @@@

    So, if Climate Dialogue fails to provide an even playing field, then they might find themselves in contempt of the Dutch Parliament, and guilty of wasting public funds.

    • I’m betting they dont consider your opinion on who and who is not a skeptic to be important. Im betting they wont consider your opinion on who the experts should be. You’re not an expert on skeptics nor an expert on experts.

  27. One of the things that has caught my eye, is the political situation in Europe. The EU has backed off trying to collect it’s carbon tax on airlines flying into the EU. The issue is now under the auspices of IATA, which, surely, will take a decade to decide anything.

    In the UK, the Coalition’s energy policy seems to have run into major difficulties. So far as I can see, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has looked at the books and can see that if the UK rigidly applies the provisions of the Climate Change Act, it is committing economic suicide. But the Lib. Dems are determined to stick with a “greeen” agenda. The government policy is due to be issued this month, and it will be interesting to see precisely what this document contains.

  28. “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,”

    Judith, seize your chance, and write to Obama with the true facts!

    It seems clear to me that Obama has become luke warm about climate change – which may mean he is starting to realise the truth – and you might just make a difference.

    My feeling is that the apocalyptic propaganda has become so divorced from reality that it may be vulnerable. The difference between the hype that Obama referred to, and the flat temperature curve for the last 16 years, might just do the job.

    There is a 99% chance it will do no good, but it wouldn’t take much effort!

  29. Judith, Regarding sea ice. I remember seeing a graph some time ago at WUWT, that showed that the amount of ice at the two poles oscillates out of phase on a fairly long time scale. I can’t seem to find that entry now, but is it true, and can it account for the fact that the Arctic ice has diminished while the Antarctic ice has possibly increased in recent years? Are we, in effect, worrying about the instantaneous slope of a sine wave!

    • David, you write “I can’t seem to find that entry now, but is it true, and can it account for the fact that the Arctic ice has diminished while the Antarctic ice has possibly increased in recent years? Are we, in effect, worrying about the instantaneous slope of a sine wave!”

      This is what ought to have been the issue discussed on Climate Dialogue. Your observation is correct. The data is in any of the places where sea ice extent is quoted for the north and south poles. The negative correlation is highly sigfniicant. It seems to me that this cannot be explained with a phenomenon that claims the world is warming. Something is causing the Arctic and Antarctic to be out of phase. A hypothesis is that changing cloud cover is the cause. The albedo of clouds is higher than the surface in just about all places, except Antarctica, when the huge extent of the land ice has a higher albedo than clouds. So clouds cause cooling over the earth, except over Antarctica, where they cause warming. So a global wide change in cloud cover could explain the observations. The truth of this hypothesis is not clear

      • Well you obviously know more details than I do – why not ask a question over there? I had intended to do that, but I couldn’t find the relevant graph to make my point. It seems to me that that website offers an opportunity for proponents of global warming to be shamed into responding to issues like this.

    • David Bailey and Jim Cripwell

      The raw sea ice data from NSIDC are available at:
      ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

      This site has had some problems lately. If so, go to the NSIDC page:

      http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/index.html#monthly_data_files

      Click on “FTP directory”

      Select the month and select “Arctic” or “Antarctic”

      This gives you the sea ice extent in millions of square km for the end of that month by year since 1979.

      I’ve taken the time to download and periodically update these data files.

      You’ll see that the sea ice in both locations recedes in summer and recovers in winter; this happens every year.

      What gets all the media attention is the “extent” of Arctic sea ice at its lowest annual point in late summer.

      End-summer (September) Arctic sea ice has declined significantly since 1979. The linear rate of decrease figures out to around 0.9 msk out of a (1979-2000 baseline) total of 7 msk or 12% per decade.

      On the other hand, end-summer Antarctic sea ice (March) has increased since 1979, but at a slower rate. Here the linear increase is only 0.2 msk out of a (1979-2000 baseline) total of 4.5 msk or 4% per decade.

      The two are anticyclical (winter/summer) so adding them up is meaningless, but if you did add up the two end summer records, you’d see a net decline in overall end-summer sea ice.

      Melting sea ice has no impact on sea level, since it is already floating

      Max

      • Max, I did not explain myself properly. Arctic sea ice extent has been decreasing since 1979; Antractic has been increasing; negative correlation. Both graphs are noisy. However, in the years when the Arctic sea ice is above the trend line, most of the time the Antarctic sea ice is below the trend line; and vice versa. There is a very high negative correlation between the sea ice extents in this regard. That is the important issue to me.

      • Do you think it somehow possible that increasing Antarctic sea ice is having an effect upon arctic sea ice?

      • gbaikie you write “Do you think it somehow possible that increasing Antarctic sea ice is having an effect upon arctic sea ice?”

        No I dont. I think that the progress at both poles is driven by the same cause. As I have explained elsewhere, my guess is the hypothesis is that the main cause is changing cloud cover. More clouds make the climate colder in general, as they have a higher albedo than the surface. EXCEPT for Antarctica, where the albedo of the land ice is higher than the albedo of clouds, so more clouds mean warming.

      • Max, My email address is bf906@ncf.ca. I have some confidential information which I am sure you will be interested in. if you dont mind my having your email address, which I will keep confidential, please email me.

  30. I was outraged to hear Obama’s fantastical declaration. I continue to be amazed in equal measure by the ignorance (to be kind about it) of ohterwise intelligent people, and the failure…over and over and over again…of those who know better to speak truth to power.

    • So vote against him.

      Oh wait.

      • Eli

        Yeah. Apparently only 49% of the US voters did (assuming there was no massive voter fraud).

        It appears that the POTUSA’s team (Jim Messina, David Axelrod et al) ran one helluva slick and well-organized campaign, while his challenger’s campaign made some key mistakes and was much more poorly organized.

        That’s all history now – so let’s see what happens next.

        Max

      • It appears that the POTUSA’s team (Jim Messina, David Axelrod et al) ran one helluva slick and well-organized campaign, while his challenger’s campaign made some key mistakes and was much more poorly organized.

        Or then again, maybe the ideology that 47% of Americans are moochers turned out not to be an ideology that most Americans support.

        Or maybe most Americans just think that Romney was a lousy candidate.

        There are reasons why majorities of women (who outnumber and vote more than men), African Americans, and Latinos have rejected Republican ideology. Republican candidates have lost the popular vote in what, 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections.

        It’s interesting to watch how “conservatives” are running around trying to explain the results of the election.

      • Joshua

        No doubt you are correct that Obama’s campaign did a great job motivating and mobilizing African-American, Hispanics and women voters.

        Hats off to them.

        The other team got around 49% of the popular vote, but scored poorly on electoral votes.

        It appears you still have a “split” nation – I hope the elected politicians on both sides will be able to work together.

        But I guess we’ll see.

        Max

      • manacker –

        Once again – evidence of stunning selectivity of your logic:

        No doubt you are correct that Obama’s campaign did a great job motivating and mobilizing African-American, Hispanics and women voters.

        I think that the Romney campaign did a great job of motivating Democratic voters. I certainly know that for me, absent the odious ideology of Republicans, I may well not vote for another Dem again.

        So once again, you selectively attribute Romney’s and Obama’s tactics and teams without ever giving American voters credit for voting based on their assessment of policies and stances on issues. Outside of the condescension in your statements, we also just see weak logic. In your zeal to confirm your biases, you fail to account for obvious variables.

        And how ironic that you would find fault largely residing in Romney’s campaign and staff – given that his main qualification was supposed to be his organizational skills and other abilities related to his supposed business acumen. Amazing, isn’t it, that someone who is such a success because of his rational analysis and strategical choices would have failed in the most significant endeavor of his entire life?

        You will note, manacker, that not a few Republicans have begun to notice the weakness of their policy stances as a political strategy – particularly when you consider demographic trends. Notice the turn-arounds such as seen by Hannity’s flip-flop on immigration.

        On the one hand, I applaud such a shift among Republican strategists as it will likely lead to differentially better results for the American public. But it is also hard for me not to applaud the vacuous after-action analysis presented by partisans such as yourself – that only seeks to confirm biases rather than identify the real reasons for Romney’s failure.

      • Romney’s 47% quip was stupid and will have cost him white votes, the election was won by Obama on turnout, ie. a higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics turned out to vote for Obama than whites did for Romney.

        US elections are now racial, especially amongst the black population, also amongst the Hispanic population though to a lesser extent.

        The Republicans will need to make sure in future that they field a non white candidate against a non white Democrat candidate, and visa versa.

        The only way a white Republican candidate could defeat a black Democrat candidate now is if the Republican is a woman.

        This is the modern reality.

      • J Martin,

        You say the election was won by Obama on turnout then go to say it was the black and hispanic voters who were doing the turning out.

        I’ve looked up the figures and, yes, the “turnout” was the highest since 1968 when Richard Nixon was elected.

        Was he said to have won the election on “turnout” too? I don’t remember anyone saying that. The largely white voters, voting for Nixon, would have been doing their civic duty. Not just ‘turning out’.

        So, in the USA, voting is a good thing, but only if its done by white voters supporting Republican candidates?

      • Tempterrain.

        As I am a Brit living in Ye Olde England I have no particular political allegiance to either Democrat or Republican party.

        It is clear from this side of the pond that voting on a racial basis is today a part of American politics. In parts of the States the Republicans received zero votes from black voters, this does not seem to me to be indicative of anything other than voting on a racial basis.

        This was not a factor back in Nixon’s era as minorities were smaller, and there were no black candidates. Today minorities have grown and will become a majority in the course of time, demography is an electoral time bomb that the republicans in particular have so far failed to grasp.

        At this time it would seem that the black population in the USA do not give any thought whatsoever to the differing approaches to the economy and other political issues that one would hope an educated and involved electorate would consider when casting their vote.

        The republicans need to wake up,smell the roses, and grasp the thorns, they need to have black candidates and female candidates as well as white male candidates standing for election as the republican representative. Perhaps one day they may even elect a black or female to represent them as candidate in the presidential elections.

        Racism is today an unavoidable factor in US elections and the republicans must open their minds and learn how to address this if they are to stand any chance in future elections in the USA.

        They must sell the Laffer curve to the black population and also to the whole of the US electorate as the USA is currently on course for a much more serious economic collapse than the headline figure of 16 going on 20 trillion dollar debt would indicate.

        Since I seem to have digressed into economics, one cannot consider the (US) national debt in isolation, issues such as demography and more especially, mandated spending must be taken into account. Before long the US faces the possibility that mandated spending will exceed (tax) revenue even after all other spending has been cut, ie. health and the entirety of the military budget and many other expenditures.

        This is an unsustainable situation and the US will go bankrupt even more spectacularly than Greece. with dire consequences not just for the population of the US but also for the whole world. Beside this, issues such as electoral racism and possible electronic electoral fraud pale into abject insignificance.

      • And on the economics stuff, some links,

        “That it has been nearly 700 years … that this effect of greater revenues from lower rates has been known; yet we still do not have leaders that recognize it today, … That as recently as the 1980s the Republicans knew it, and that in 1963 the Democrats new it; yet today NEITHER PARTY seems aware of it, or willing to act on the awareness;

        http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/cameron-meets-smith-keynes-and-laffer/

        Lots of graphs;

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/demographic-bomb-and-us-debt-explosion/

        Federal spending +229%, home income +27%;

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/well-theres-your-problem-fed-spending-299-home-income-27/

        The Laffer curve itself;

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

        It is interesting to note that those economies that have followed the Cowperthwaite policy of adherence to the Laffer curve taxation principles are growing steadily (bar occasional world wide blips) and reducing their national debts, not increasing as seen in the EU and US. Russia and Hong Kong are examples of economies with low taxation, few tax regulations and hence loopholes. The growth and success of Hong Kong is largely considered to be the result of just one man a Scotsman James Cowperthwaite. Russia seems to be pursuing a similar course with the result of steady growth and steady and continued reduction in national debt, if Russia continues on this course then Russia will become one of the very few countries with no national debt.

        Unless the EU and the US come to their taxation senses, then there will be two economic powers in the world, China and Russia, with an emergent India and possibly Brazil queueing up to join them.

        Ironic, isn’t it.

        In the west, we face nothing but economic disaster. One hopes that the US will bite the bullet and grasp the thorns and deal with their institutionalised debt before national expenditure reaches a level of twice the income which the US is on course for.

        The re-election of Obama will likely speed the process of escalating debt, especially if the US pursues renewables in the manner that Spain has done where unemployment has now reached 25%.

        Ideally the US needs to elect a James Cowperthwaite clone to be president of the US. We need that here in the UK also.

      • In my brief and necessarily shallow post on the state of the US economy I omitted a game changing miracle.

        Fracking and US energy independence.

        This offers the capability of allowing the US economy to regenerate whilst bringing to an end the debt increasing effects of spending money to import oil.

        It may also help cushion or even stop the societal breakup that might have been seen had the fiscal cliff been postponed to the bitter end.

        Fracking plus Laffer / Cowperthwaite offers the US a near miraculous opportunity to escape what did and still may be inevitable.

        The saying “If America sneezes the rest of the World catches a cold” still has some validity. Guys, you need to sort your economy out.

      • J Martin,

        If the USA has borrowed too much money from China, I would suggest it’s more China’s problem than the USA’s. If the US won’t or can’t repay what can the Chinese do about it? Demand Alaska or the Hawaiian Islands in compensation? I don’t think so, do you? Not with all the nuclear firepower at the USA’s disposal.

        All major powers behave the same way. It was the same story with the British Empire in the 19th century. Right wing ideologues in the UK, like Mrs Thatcher, are fond of the idea of Victorian values. But the ‘Victorians’ ran up huge public debts. By comparison, UK debts are quite modest now.

        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4Sy6qBb89-M/TK4j5j3F3TI/AAAAAAAAAnE/K4mx2ZRHdmQ/s400/UK+Debt+History.bmp

        I’m not sure why it should be but those of a right wing disposition do seem unnecessarily alarmist about debt levels and unjustifiably sanguine on issues like climate change.

      • Didn’t Bush use California for collateral on the Chinese loans?

      • tempterrain “I’m not sure why it should be but those of a right wing disposition do seem unnecessarily alarmist about debt levels and unjustifiably sanguine on issues like climate change.”

        Only in the view of leftwing ideologues. Whose chief interest in climate change is the impetus it gives for more taxes and a generally more totalitarian society. And as for insolvency not being a problem for the debtor since the creditor is going to suffer … (anyone know of a smiley for shaking one’s head in disbelief?)

  31. There’s no mystery about where Pres. Obama’s views on climate science originate. They come from his science adviser John Holdren, whose views are well known and easily accessible. Holdren, like so many, oversimplifies the issues for the president’s consumption, although it appears he reflects some of the gnarly aspects of the science (not being able to nail down man-made emissions and any particular weather event, for example). The president, surely on the advice of those around him and perhaps out of personal experience, chose Holdren to advise him. So what comes out is not at all surprising.

  32. I will say the level of “outrage” about Obama’s veracity is rather amusing.

    We read “skeptics” all the time saying things like they dismiss the “cranks” who talk of a “hoax.” We read that “most” “skeptics” reject the thinking of anyone who doesn’t think that ACO2 warms the climate.

    Now we have also read many Republican politicians make statements like those I noted that our “skeptic” friends reject – yet their level of “outrage” about those other statements are nothing like their level of outrage about statements of Obama that they also reject as false.

    Now the reason for this difference in “outrage” could be that Obama is more powerful than those other politicians. I wonder if there might be any other explanation?

    • Joshua

      Anytime a very influential individual (like the POTUSA) makes a blatantly incorrect statement on a very important issue (as was the case here), it is important that the record be corrected (because many people will simply “trust” the POTUSA – and be misinformed as a result).

      Some others may follow former President Reagan’s advice to “trust but verify”, check the temperature record and, thereby, find out that the statement by the POTUSA was flat wrong – but I would guess that this will be the minority.

      “Outrage”?

      Not really, as far as I’m concerned. I think he acted in good faith and was simply given incorrect data by his advisers (Holdren?).

      It can happen to the POTUSA, as you know (WMD/Bush).

      So correcting his statement is important.

      Max

    • “their level of “outrage” about those other statements are nothing like their level of outrage…”

      Mommy! Mommy! Skeptics weren’t correctly outraged!

      Andrew

    • Not sure how you are measuring the level of outrage.
      It would be a good exercise for you to do some comparisons.
      For example:
      1. the level of outrage against David Rose
      2. the level of outrage against sarah palin for her bone headed
      errors about climategate.

      Without a measure for outrage it’s hard to examine an explanation
      for it. The fact that you see the outrage as “higher” is protentially
      confirmation bias. One way we “control” for motivated reasoning
      is by sharing data and methods. So, how did you measure the level of outrage and what comparsions did you make?
      If you made no measurement of the “level” of “outrage”, then its very possible that you are just seeing what you expect to see. As you know
      we ‘control’ for observer bias by sharing data and methods.

  33. Judith writes re Obama’s statement: “Hmmmmm. . . I wonder what his source was on the bolded statement.”

    Why Al Gore, of course!

    • theduke

      Are you referring to Al Gore, the “ex-next-President-of-the-USA”, who’s made millions with his CAGW shtick since leaving office as VP?

      Max

  34. Here is an excellent example of how climate science works courtesy of New Scientist via our friends at the Hockey Shtick – see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628914.600-link-between-global-warming-and-drought-questioned.html

    We learn that the main measure of drought is the Palmer Drought Severity Index.

    Then this

    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 science assessment cited studies using the PDSI to conclude that “droughts have become more common since the 1970s” as the world has warmed. ……… The report predicted droughts will increase with global warming.”
    So far so good. Now lets look at how the PDSI is compiled.
    “The PDSI does not directly measure drought. Instead, it looks at the difference between precipitation and evaporation. But since evaporation rates are hard to determine, it uses temperature as a proxy, on the assumption that evaporation rises as it gets hotter.”

    So, the IPCC uses an index that assumes that droughts increase with temperature to show that droughts increase with temperature.

    Justin Sheffield of Princeton University points out “that temperature is only one factor influencing evaporation. He inferred evaporation rates using the Penman-Monteith equation, which includes factors such as wind speed and humidity, and found “little change in global drought over the past 60 years” (Nature, DOI: 0.1038/nature11575). His new calculations back up his own previous analysis that the most significant of recent droughts mostly occurred in the 1950s and 60s, before global warming got going.”

    We also have this

    “Simon Brown of the UK Met Office in Exeter says Sheffield’s analysis is probably right. “There has been a growing acknowledgement that the PDSI should not be trusted when doing climate change studies,” he says. But one of the lead authors of parts of the 2007 IPCC report, Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, is sceptical. He backs work by Aiguo Dai of the State University of New York, Albany, who reported last year that using the Penman-Monteith equation “only slightly reduces the drying trend”.

    Sheffield’s findings raise important questions, says Steve Running at the University of Montana in Missoula. “If global drought is not increasing, if warmer temperatures are accompanied by more rainfall and lower evaporation rates, then a warmer wetter world would [mean] a more benign climate.”

  35. I found the Climate Dialogue blog useful and interesting. I don’t think one has to have diametrically opposed participants to make dialogue. Honest participants is the key. Participants who can state their position, and why they hold it, and admit that others hold different but possibly equally valid positions and be willing to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those alternate positions. So far, so good.

    The difference between honest dialogue and the silly name calling from certain quarters of the CliSci World (without mentioning any specific names) are thunderingly obvious in the comments.

  36. Jim Cripwell

    Over on scienceblogs.com William Connolley comments on the new climatedialogue.org site.

    As the first response, Gavin comments to Judith’s statement on attribution of Arctic sea ice decline:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/14/climatedialogue-org/

    Curry’s initial attribution statement…is actually meaningless. Likelihood statements about a continuous variable need to refer to the area under the curve – not a point value, and here description consists of no area under the curve that I can picture (maybe my imagination is at fault?). Secondly, this is just pulled out of thin air, so the justification for the mean or the uncertainty – at best – is ‘expert’ judgement, not a traceable calculation.

    Yeah, Gavin. There’s an awful lot of that ”based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies” stuff in AR4 WG1.

    In fact, almost all the attribution of “extreme weather” has this footnote.

    Oh, well…

    Max

  37. Something else is happening in the Netherlands. Does anyone know anything about this development? Is it likely to become a big deal?

    A new Dutch book written by ‘the climate-lawyer’ Roger H.J. Cox has sparked a lawsuit being filed against the Dutch government, claiming that the Netherlands is under a legal obligation to reduce its CO2 emissions by as much as 40% by 2020 and up to 95% by 2050.

    The book provided not only the impetus but a blueprint for such lawsuits, and a call for similar suits to be levied against many other Western nations.

    The book is backed by world-renowned American climate scientist James Hansen, who was the first to receive an English translation of the work at the book’s launch in The Hague.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2012/11/17/new-book-sparks-climate-suit-against-the-netherlands/

  38. About the arctic sea ice melt: two possible causes were considered: 1. anthropogenic GHG 2. natural variation. Maybe there is a third one.
    Under natural variation short term oscillations were considered – AMO, PDO, ENSO – which are cyclical over periods from a few years to a few decades.

    But maybe there is also a centuries long natural cycle at work – the one that caused a steady rise of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, preceded by a drop in temps from the MWP.

    What part of the melt can be attributed to this cycle ? I believe it’s more than zero.

  39. “Outrage” is the appropriate response it seems to me to Obama’s false statement. The so-called leader of the free world doesn’t have a clue, nor apparently any inclination to go out and get one. Joshua, you’re too busy trying to appear superior to muster anything more than your usual sniggering response. I doubt you’ve ever had an honest emotion in your life.

  40. I think Obama and the Democratic members of both the house and the senate recognize that the jig is up with global warming alarmism. It’s no longer a real issue. It’s a bargaining chip. And he is just stirring the pot to get his constituents riled up.

    • To be fair to Democratic members of both the house and the senate, many of them have been there for very long time and for very long time they have realized it is not a real issue.

    • Saying the “jig is up” is not really the way the politicians think of the issue of climate change, and no politician is going to get any traction being an “alarmist” in public even if they privately think that climate change could be a significant issue facing both the U.S. and of course the world. But what politicians are willing to say in public can be traced directly to events that the public can perceive and experience, but I think what you see done quietly behind the scenes in terms of policy and where monies are being spent tells you something about what it is really seen as important. In this regard, increasingly larger sums of money are being spent by the Pentagon every year studying and even preparing for the longer-term strategic and security implications of climate change. This is not alarmism (as the Pentagon would not want to ever be cast in this light) but simple thoughtful preparation based on current scientific research.

      • increasingly larger sums of money are being spent by the Pentagon every year studying and even preparing for the longer-term strategic and security implications of climate change

        “climate change” AKA “global warming”

        In other words, preparing for the very opposite of what is far more likely to happen. Prolonged and possibly severe cooling.

      • J Martin,

        There is no evidence that prolonged and severe cooling is in store…only the pronouncements from what I consider to be the “CNGC” crowd– Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling” who like to base everything on solar effects, galactic cosmic rays, etc.

        Now there is no doubt that the natural variations of solar output play some role in the climate, and the current “sleepy sun” period has had some role to play in the flattening of near surface temperatures, along with a cool phase of the PDO, increased natural and anthropogenic aerosols, etc., but to extrapolate this to mean “prolonged and severe” cooling is to completely discount the effects of the 40% increase in CO2 (and similar rises in methane and N20) that we’ve seen over the past few centuries. Furthermore, other natural negative forcings, such as from a series of large volcanic eruptions, may have had the initially large role to play our immediate past cooler period of the LIA. Probably the only way we’d go into some prolonged cooling period would be a singularly large volcanic eruption such as we saw in Mt. Toba 74K years ago, or a series of continuous smaller eruptions, or of course a large asteroid strike. In that none of these are predictable, the CNGC crowd has little to base their conjectures on.

      • R Gates

        “…is to completely discount the effects of the 40% increase in CO2…”

        Since the effects of co2 are logarithmic and the postulated feedbacks in the models have yet to manifest themselves, I think it’s entirely reasonable to to “completely discount the effects of the 40% increase in CO2″.

        On the subject of future temperatures I guess we shall have to agree to disagree for now. However, on the bright side, we shouldn’t have to wait too many years before we see if temperatures go down or up.

      • ‘CNGC’ a new label, much more civilised than ‘deniers’. I will wear it with pride.

      • J Martin

        Glad you approve of the moniker. If the shoe fits…

        But you said:

        “Since the effects of co2 are logarithmic and the postulated feedbacks in the models have yet to manifest themselves…”

        _____
        Are you certain the feedbacks have yet to manifest themselves? Global atmospheric water vapor levels have been increasing and sea ice in the Arctic has declined even faster than the models forecast just a few years ago. On what do you base the supposition that feedbacks have yet to manifest themselves?

      • R. Gates | November 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm | J Martin,

        There is no evidence that prolonged and severe cooling is in store…only the pronouncements from what I consider to be the “CNGC” crowd– Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling” who like to base everything on solar effects, galactic cosmic rays, etc.

        So you don’t understand what the Vostok and other data are telling us?

        http://www.iceagenow.com/Pravda-Earth_on_the_Brink_of_an_Ice_Age.htm

        .. but to extrapolate this to mean “prolonged and severe” cooling is to completely discount the effects of the 40% increase in CO2 (and similar rises in methane and N20) that we’ve seen over the past few centuries.

        CO2 levels lag behind temperature rises by c800 years, any increase in carbon dioxide now is accountable for if you put back the MWP.

        How exactly does Methane drive global warming according to your religion? Being lighter than air methane will rise up and away, logically then will take away heat from the surface. As does water vapour, with its large heat capacity it takes away heat from the surface and releases it in the colder heights as it condenses back to liquid water or ice, forming clouds and rain, together with carbon dioxide. That’s called the Water Cycle – try putting it back in to your dogma.

        Probably the only way we’d go into some prolonged cooling period would be a singularly large volcanic eruption such as we saw in Mt. Toba 74K years ago, or a series of continuous smaller eruptions, or of course a large asteroid strike. In that none of these are predictable, the CNGC crowd has little to base their conjectures on.

        How has AGW completely discounted that we’re in a brief warming period in the middle of an Ice Age?

        Are you really all so, well, um, lacking in knowledge about climate?
        As you clearly are about weather or you’d have noticed you don’t have the Water Cycle or rain in your Carbon Cycle.

      • ” On what do you base the supposition that feedbacks have yet to manifest themselves?”

        16 years of flat temperatures.

        (01:00 am here and I’m going to get some sleep.)

      • Myrrh said:

        “CO2 levels lag behind temperature rises by c800 years, any increase in carbon dioxide now is accountable for if you put back the MWP.”

        Repsonse: Sorry Myrrh, the MWP did not cause the current high CO2 levels (though I’d not heard that denialist line before, so I’ve got to give you credit for something new). Human burning of fossil fuels mainly caused it along with some other human activities. It would be nice if it were all natural cycles and the 7+ Billion of us now alive and the billions of humans who have come before us could walk with complete immunity across this planet, doing whatever we’d like without affecting the world we rely on. But that is not the case, humans do affect the planet in multiple ways,
        _______________
        Myrrh said:

        “How exactly does Methane drive global warming according to your religion?”

        Response: As I’ve got no religion so I couldn’t answer that, but according to radiative transfer theory and measurements, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that, though many times more potent than CO2, resides in the atmosphere as methane for less time (thankfully). Any significant increase in CH4 beyond the background levels we’ve seen during the Holocene will affect the greenhouse gas forcing overall.

        _____
        Myrrh asked:

        “How has AGW completely discounted that we’re in a brief warming period in the middle of an Ice Age?”

        Response: The cycles of glacial growth and retreat over the past 2.5 million years are driven by the Milankovitch cycles. Our current interglacial might have come to naturally end in the next few thousands of years were it not for the additional positive forcing brought about by anthropogenic activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions). Expect a longer warm period (perhaps a very warm period) The key issue will be how warm it will get and how humans will adapt to the warmth. At this point in time, going back to 350 ppm of CO2 seems unrealistic. Prepare to adapt to Pliocene-like conditions or warmer.

      • R Gates.

        “Our current interglacial might have come to naturally end in the next few thousands of years were it not for the additional positive forcing brought about by anthropogenic activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions)”

        Oh come on, your comment is nothing more than speculative wishful thinking !

        co2 derived warming (if indeed it exists at all) is thought to be able to produce about 1.5 C warming by the end of the century with a possible maximum of 1.5 degrees C. There is no evidence to the contrary much to the distress of the climate modellers.

        A glaciation can produce a drop in temperatures of up to 10 degrees C.

        The idea that somehow mankind’s use of co2 will prevent or even delay the next glaciation is real ostrich head in the sand stuff.

        As we go through solar cycles 24 and 25 we will undoubtedly gain a great deal of highly enlightening data as to the relative effects of co2 and the only thing that does generate heat on Earth, namely the Sun.

        Medieval man changed the climate. I think not. Show me your graphs and evidence for such a patently ridiculous statement.

      • R. Gates | November 17, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
        Repsonse: Sorry Myrrh, the MWP did not cause the current high CO2 levels (though I’d not heard that denialist line before, so I’ve got to give you credit for something new). Human burning of fossil fuels mainly caused it along with some other human activities.

        How can you keep regurgitating this unproven claim, and never proven in any show and tell when requested of your ilk, when Carbon Dioxide had nothing to do with driving the great and dramatic temperature changes in and out of our interglacials in the norm which is the Ice Age we are in?

        Why is there this seeming inability to make logical connections from those with your faith based unproven science claims? Which is what makes this a religious belief.

        As I’ve got no religion so I couldn’t answer that, but according to radiative transfer theory and measurements, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that, though many times more potent than CO2, resides in the atmosphere as methane for less time (thankfully). Any significant increase in CH4 beyond the background levels we’ve seen during the Holocene will affect the greenhouse gas forcing overall.

        Until you can show any science facts about your claims, your claims remain faith based, therefore you are regurgitating doctrine from your religion.

        Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it cannot defy gravity to “accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years” as is claimed by your priests. It is also fully part of the Water Cycle which your religion has excised from its imagined reality, in this carbon dioxide has the same residence time as water in the atmosphere which is 8-10 DAYS. You don’t have any rain in your Carbon Cycle in your imaginary world. Your world isn’t real.

        Methane rises because it is lighter than air, carbon dioxide sinks because it is heavier than air. All part of the CYCLES of Life, which you don’t have. Your religion is describing a dead world.

        Whatever heat capacity methane has it will be taking this up and away from the surface, and carbon dioxide has for all practical purposes zilch ability to trap heat, and, heat rises.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/

        Your religion is faith in the memes of the fake beliefs of The Greenhouse Effect. Regurgitating the memes is not proof that your claims are real world. Fetch real physics from the real world not fake fisics from your modelled world which doesn’t even have the Water Cycle.

        “How has AGW completely discounted that we’re in a brief warming period in the middle of an Ice Age?”

        Response: The cycles of glacial growth and retreat over the past 2.5 million years are driven by the Milankovitch cycles. Our current interglacial might have come to naturally end in the next few thousands of years were it not for the additional positive forcing brought about by anthropogenic activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions). Expect a longer warm period (perhaps a very warm period) The key issue will be how warm it will get and how humans will adapt to the warmth. At this point in time, going back to 350 ppm of CO2 seems unrealistic. Prepare to adapt to Pliocene-like conditions or warmer.

        Until you can show how carbon dioxide drives temperatures then you have no ground for any of your statements. Clearly, you can’t read graphs and have no time awareness of the cycles in and out of interglacials. All you’re doing is adding more nonsense into the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claims. It’s clear you’re not interested in how the real world works.

        Why should we expect a longer period of warming now when our interglacial is coming to its end and you have not shown even elementary physics to your “carbon dioxide driving global warming” doctrine?

        You are unable to fetch real physics explanations because there are none.

        Do you or does anyone in ‘climate science’, pro or lay, know how this non-observable Carbon dioxide forcing figure was calculated?

        Ignoring this question will not make it go away..

      • Myrrh says CO2 is heavier than air and so falls to the bottom of the atmosphere.

        So that’s what we are breathing then.

  41. Did anyone watch Al Gore’s ’24 Hours Of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report’?
    And if so, did they find anything of scientific interest?

    • Watched a very short amount. It wasn’t really about science (certainly nothing new that most of us on this blog don’t know), it was a motivational, cheer leading event. Certainly some younger people will remain/become inspired by such events.

      • Right. “Inspired.” By what? what you call a “motivational, cheer leading event” was actually rife with exaggerations and out-right lies…exactly what we’ve learned to expect from Mr. Gore. WHy would this be? Usually if a cause is worthy, the truth serves nicely. But that won’t work here, will it?

      • Gore is making a play for the hearts and minds of the youth…this much is clear, and in this regard, Hansen is no different (with his arrests, etc).
        You could say that both men are being deceptive, or that they are simply standing up for a cause they truly believe in. I would tend to think the later is more likely (casting aside the spiteful political rhetoric). But it doesn’t matter as the net result is the same…Gore does big events and Hansen get’s arrested.

      • Whilst I would agree with Gates that they believe in their cause, I also think there is more to it;

        I think that in Gore’s case it was an ideal vehicle for his ego and I doubt that he is even aware of it.

        In Hansen’s case he burnt his boats with his initial drama show in the 80s and irrevocably tied his reputation to runaway global warming caused by co2. Again, he may no longer be capable of separating fact from fiction.

        Both should get out of the public arena and do do something useful, like take up gardening (preferably in leg irons).

        (This must be only the second time I have agreed with something R gates has said, good job I’m sitting down with a beer.)

      • “In Hansen’s case he burnt his boats with his initial drama show in the 80s and irrevocably tied his reputation to runaway global warming caused by co2. Again, he may no longer be capable of separating fact from fiction.

        Both should get out of the public arena and do do something useful, like take up gardening (preferably in leg irons).”

        I believe the most significant thing that could happen in 21 century is
        for us to have Cheaper Access to Space [CATS].
        I would define CATS as the ticket price of seat to Low Earth orbit as being
        1 million dollar or less.
        Currently, it’s about 10 million dollars or more per seat.

        I would add 1 million to LEO, or 5 million to lunar surface, and/or 50 million to the Mars surface. That would be CATS as I am using the expression.

        Doing this is part of Hansen’s job. So I say, instead farting around with his hobby, Hansen should do his job. Or quit and allow someone more serious do his job.

  42. The only thing that is actually “increasing faster” is climate data fraud as practised by GISS, NOAA and others.

    When are our dumbo politicians and their rabid advisor’s going to wake up ?

    3 or 4 severe winters on the trot might do it, though I think we have a few years to wait.

  43. Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic
    Multidecadal Oscillation

    Abstract

    Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910 – 1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970 – 2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    • Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/796.abstract

      …did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability.

      This means that IPCC’s 0.2 deg C per decade warming is incorrect. As a result, the overall warming rate of 0.05 deg C per decade since 1850 should continue.

      http://bit.ly/UM9T4n

      This strongly suggests IPCC’s climate sensitivity of 3.2 deg C for doubling of CO2 is an overestimation by a factory of 0.2/0.05 = 4. The true climate sensitivity should be 3.2/4 = 0.8 deg C.

    • Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level?

      Key Points
      -There is a 60-year oscillation in the majority of long tide gauge records
      -The signal is consistent in phase and amplitude in many ocean basins
      -This has important implications for quantifying sea level acceleration

      Chambers et al.

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052885.shtml

  44. “What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago,”

    I do hear this total false information repeated in the media, but I do not hear the truth of this exposed from the media.

  45. Climate sensitivity to CO2, based on actual data, is more of a joke or a scam or a hoax, than anything scientific. 1998 was our warmest year in modern times and temperature has gone up and down below that level ever since then while CO2 has gone up with no acknowledgment by temperature.

    How many years of the climate-gate lack of warming travesty must we endure before the people say that is too much?

    How many years of the climate-gate lack of warming travesty must we endure before the climate scientists say that is too much?

    I say that is too much already. I say that is too long already.

    • Herman

      They have said at least 17 years. We need to wait a couple of years.

      But they might move the goal post then.

      • They will definitely attempt to move the goalposts and it should certainly be an interesting bit of goalpost moving since the likelihood of temperatures going anywhere other than down is low. Solar activity may amble along for a while before it declines, taking temperatures with it.

      • Girma

        It’s Christmas Eve 2014, as the 17th year of “no global warming” nears its end…

        Two grandfatherly climatologists, Jim and Phil, are sitting by the burning Yule log, sipping their Kool-Aid, as a sudden rattling noise startles them

        Jim (on edge): What’s that noise I hear?

        Phil (concerned): Is it Santer’s reindeer up on the roof?

        Jim (worried): No, but could it be the rustle of a falling house of cards?

        Phil (shuddering): Or, perhaps the sound of of tables being turned?

        Both (sighing with relief): Whew! No, it’s just the sound of goalposts being moved.

        (The lights dim as the two take another sip of Kool-Aid…)

        Max

      • Nice. Now we just need to get it printed onto a Christmas card and get it sent out to a number of the ‘team’ and their assistant priests.

      • With the next temperature step that will predictably occur in an El Nino around or after the next solar max, that noise will be the skeptics’ hot air balloon deflating.

      • I second J Martin

      • Max

        +1

      • Jim D is sipping the same Kool-Aid as the two grandfatherly climatologists.

        What flavor, Jim: cherry?

        Max

      • Jim D
        I’m afraid your next solar max is at least 20 years away and possibly very much further. Most solar pundits reckon that the next cycle may effectively go missing, and some think that cooling could continue on to the year 2100.
        Any El Nino’s that do appear will be mere toddlers, whereas the La Nina’s will be full grown voluptuous wonders.

      • Look here. Jumps at solar max. Next solar max due 2014-5 (yes, there is still one coming).

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:36/from:1950/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.001/mean:36

      • Jim D
        So far this cycle (24) we have had half a solar max of sorts with the other half to come in 2013 ? 2014 ?
        But I can’t see it spawning an El Nino as the last one petered out, perhaps the current half height solar high if it carrys on for a year longer may produce a half hearted pre pubescent El Nino, before the solar cycle goes into decline and delivers a string of grown up La Nina’s.
        Idle speculation on my part.
        Cycle 25 will do what ? we can but wait and see, but the betting is on very low to missing.

      • It doesn’t have to be an exceptional El Nino to make a step when it is given a boost by the solar max. From the graph, this behavior looks very predictable.

      • Indeed already we are seeing very warm temperatures for an ENSO neutral period. It’s amusing to see the climate skeptics don’t realize they are pounding nails into their own coffins.

    • I have been asking how many more years and never hear an answer. Maybe, just maybe, in another decade some will start to say “yea but-fill in the excuses of why it has not warmed- and then, we ain’t giving up yet.”

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        dennis adams wonders “I have been asking how many more years [global warming will remain flat] and never hear an answer.”

        Dennis Adams, that’s because the starting postulate that ‘warming has stopped’ is delusional.

        How may we further illuminate your understanding, Dennis Adams [and Girma, and Herman Alexander Pope]?   ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • I certainly hope it does keep warming. But I think you’ll find that too great a reliance on ‘adjusted’ data sets will lead you to a false conclusion in the end.

        In a number of cases the adjustments have become quite extreme as both Steven Goddard’s blog and WUWT have shown.

        Give it few years and the Sun will “further illuminate your (own) understanding”.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        J Martin opines “I certainly hope it does keep warming.”

        Link added.   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:

        Who knew that heat-loving anaerobic marine bacteria posted here on Climate Etc?   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:

        And what foresighted heat-loving bacteria want is simple … they want us humans to keep burning carbon.   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:   :eek:   :oops:   :cry:

      • That article you linked to about runaway Triassic warming has been thoroughly debunked in WUWT. Nice try though.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        J Martin claims  “That article you linked about  runaway Triassic warming  Darwian evolution has been thoroughly debunked by  WUWT  Southern Baptist scholars. Nice try though.”

        Logic extended!   ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Fan

        You ask (Dennis Adams) regarding the current 15-year “pause” in global warming, which you deny:

        How may we further illuminate your understanding?

        Very simple.

        By bringing data to refute the actual physical observations:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

        Ball’s in your court, Fan.

        Max

      • J Martin.

        1. both Goddard and WUWT have focused on GHCN and CRU.
        2. You can do a global average using other un-adjusted data.
        Outside of GHCN and CRU there are over 30,000 stations.
        That is, there are roughly 36000 stations, if you remove
        GHCN and CRU from that you are left with roughly 30K stations
        of unadjusted data.
        3. A global average of this data ( non GHCN, non CRU ) is statistically
        indistinguishable from GISS or CRU answers.
        4. You can select a ‘rural only’ subset of those 30K stations and you
        also get a result that is statistically indistinguishable.
        5. You can prove this to your self. All the data and code is freely avaliable to you. If you need help just ask.
        6. A real skeptic tests his own ideas, rather than trusting others (like goddard)

      • J Martin

        But I think you’ll find that too great a reliance on ‘adjusted’ data sets will lead you to a false conclusion in the end.

        In a number of cases the adjustments have become quite extreme as both Steven Goddard’s blog and WUWT have shown.

        So there is a conspiracy amongst the keepers of the temperature records to exaggerate warming? This is what you suggest, is it not?

      • Conspiracy. A number of the Climategate emails indicated as much.

        Self delusion / confirmation bias for the most part.

      • “So there is a conspiracy amongst the keepers of the temperature records to exaggerate warming?”

        Only a Warmer Tribal Troll like yourself pretends the idea hasn’t crossed your mind.

        Andrew

      • J. Martin.
        There is no evidence whatsoever that the myriad of national weather services that provide data are part of any conspiracy. You probably never read all the climategate mails, and have little idea about what they really show. Please. Go get a new argument. I suggest you argue about sensitivity, at least you’d have a fighting chance there

      • Definition of MYRIAD
        1: ten thousand
        2: a great number

        So Steven Mosher, how many national weather services provide data?

        Andrew

      • Steven Mosher is right that “There is no evidence whatsoever that the myriad of national weather services that provide data are part of any conspiracy”.

        I assume when he says “myriad” he is referring to the individual weather stations, that are scattered all over the globe. They may have thermometers next to AC exhausts, asphalt runways and parking lots, etc., but this is probably just carelessness or inattention rather than willful intent to deceive on the part of the station operators.

        What raises suspicion is when the “keepers of the records” (Jones) hide data from FOIA requests, (Jones, Hansen) when they make forecasts of accelerated warming, when they constantly “correct” and “adjust” numbers ex post facto (and these adjustments all go in the direction of making recent warming look larger).

        No, this is not “proof” of a “conspiracy” – but it is “circumstantial evidence” of suspicious behavior IMO.

        Max

        PS And, folks, don’t forget that there is sort of a check on these guys with the satellite record of tropospheric temperature (which does not have the urbanization or siting problems of the surface stations). It confirms warming but shows a slightly lower rate of warming than the surface (even though IPCC curiously claims the opposite).

        .

      • Only a Warmer Tribal Troll like yourself pretends the idea hasn’t crossed your mind.

        It has, but the idea that there’s a cabal of climate scientists distorting the temperature data for murky but leftish reasons is too much for me. As for most people, except for the conspiracy theorists.

        Oddly, suggesting that there is a substantial cohort of conspiracy theorists in the sceptic camp triggers a furious response (eg. Lewandowsky). Yet there is abundant evidence that this is the case. This exchange is now part of it.

      • “It has, but the idea that there’s a cabal of climate scientists distorting the temperature data for murky but leftish reasons is too much for me.”

        Leftists want state control of industry. It’s their stated objective and their behavior follows. What’s murky about that?

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew.
        you guys have no idea how the data flows from an observer station through a national weather service ( one in every nation ) or through the WMO ending up in a final database.
        No idea whatsoever.

        GHCN Monthly is but one such data base. Its one of the smaller databases. You can go look and see what sources they use and how they compile the data.

        If you dont like the fact that Hansen uses GHCN, then you can do a simple check. Use other stations. Use the thousands of stations that report through WMO. Use USAF stations. Use daily station data that never gets adjusted. You could also use data from agricultural networks.
        That’s a fun check. take the state of california. It runs an independent hourly set of thousands of stations that farmers rely on. You can, and I have, compared these agricultural stations to GHCN stations, to GCOS, to GHCN Daily. Now, you gotta figure if somebody was “cooking” the GHCN data that it would not match with the agri data. Guess what?
        it matches. You could look at the state networks. you could look at the calibration stations set up for satillite work. You could compare CRN, the WUWT gold standard, with USHCN. no difference.

        There is no evidence of conspiracy. The conspiricay would have to extend to all the national weather services ( 200+). The states that run networks. The universities that run networks. The department of agriculture in various states that run networks. To Spencer and Christy and RSS.

        If you want to talk about the surface record there is one and only one argument worth making: UHI and Micro site.
        Arguments about adjustments are broken by the fact that we get the same answer using unadjusted data. Arguments about data tampering are busted by doing comparisons with other networks ( like networks used by business, like CRN, like UHA ) Arguments about spatial coverage and instrument accuracy are busted by out of sample testing.

        Down to one one argument. My suggestion is that you forget the stupid arguments and the busted arguments and focus you energy on the one remaining leverage point

      • “suggesting that there is a substantial cohort of conspiracy theorists in the sceptic camp triggers a furious response”

        BBD,

        And what do you think a cohort of skeptic theorists could accomplish?

        Andrew

      • All the *real scientists* are sceptics. All the right wing ideologues busily denying AGW are ‘sceptics’. Don’t confuse the two.

      • BBD and Bad Andrew

        Those who are rationally skeptical of IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis are skeptics (by definition).

        Several posters here (including myself) fall into that category.

        They are not convinced that the IPCC’s CAGW premise is supported by empirical scientific evidence, so they have concluded that it is based on an invalid or at best uncorroborated hypothesis.

        “Conspiracy theorists” sounds like a term coined by those who realize that they are unable to show the empirical evidence the skeptics insist on, in order to defend their paradigm..

        I haven’t heard of any skeptics talk about a conspiracy – a collusion of interests, maybe, but not a conspiracy.

        Sounds like a “side track” to me in order to avoid the main issue.

        Max

      • They are not convinced that the IPCC’s CAGW premise is supported by empirical scientific evidence, so they have concluded that it is based on an invalid or at best uncorroborated hypothesis.

        Argument from incredulity doesn’t challenge the scientific consensus. To do that requires a widely-supported scientifc case and you do not have one. Whatever you may claim.

      • BBD

        Wrong.

        What it requires is “argument from evidence”.

        And that is precisely what is missing.

        Max

      • Manacker

        What it requires is “argument from evidence”.

        And that is precisely what is missing.

        From the ‘sceptical’ arguments that I have seen, yes.

        Something that gets obscured by the gunsmoke is the simple truth that we’d all weep with relief if there was a persuasive scientific case that ‘CAGW’ was yarbles.

        Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see a persuasive counter to the scientific consensus on AGW. On this we are united.

      • Manaker:

        “Those who are rationally skeptical of IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis are skeptics (by definition).”

        a couple points. first, one isnt skeptical of a hypothesis. One tests a hypothesis. One would be skeptical of a theory. but that’s quibbling.

        For the record. What is the CAGW hypothesis ? lets start with that simple definitional aspect of the question.

        You cannot forget that the first step of skepticism is being able to accurately represent the position you are skeptical of.

        lets see if you pass skeptical kindergarten

      • Mosher, testing a hypothesis can be a challenge in some cases.

        Speaking of that, weren’t you thinking about looking into that diurnal temperature range thing? It is pretty interesting, not only that it shifted, but where it shifted and when. ‘course, I am sure that would have no impact on a full blow Theory with a capital T.

      • bbd > All the right wing ideologues busily denying AGW are ‘sceptics’.

        “Right wing ideolgue” here meaning anyone who doesn’t swallow whole the left-wing ideology which is the driving force behind CAGW.

        Whose adherents include the bulk of government climate ‘scientists’ who gave us Climategate, pal-review etc etc, and to this day will admit no wrong therein. The sort of politically-correct crookery BBD so admires.

      • Steven Mosher

        Up-thread you ask me to articulate what has become generally known as the “CAGW premise” (or hypothesis).

        Here’s my best attempt at doing that.

        “AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal driver of global temperature since around 1950 and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment [with potentially catastrophic impacts] unless actions are undertaken to dramatically reduce the emissions of human GHGs (principally CO2)”

        This premise is based on the supposition (or postulation) of a “high” 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (i.e. a mean value of 3.2C).

        I am rationally skeptical of this premise, Steven, for reasons I have already cited but will summarize her:

        The above “CAGW hypothesis” is not falsifiable (Popper), nor is it supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman).

        Max

      • Steven Mosher

        Since you asked me (as a “kindergarten” exercise) to articulate the hypothesis (or premise) of which I am rationally skeptical, I have done this (above).

        Now I’m going to ask you two “kindergarten” questions for someone who accepts this hypothesis (or premise) as valid (assuming you do).

        – How can it be falsified? (Popper)
        – What empirical scientific evidence can be cited to support it (Feynman)

        [If you do NOT accept the above-stated “CAGW premise” as valid, just say so.]

        Thanks in advance for responding.

        Max

  46. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry gets uncharacteristically snarky  [of Jeremy Grantham’s] “Well this is a different angle on ‘going emeritus.’

    Judith, do one-line “snarks” contribute anything substantial to the climate-change debate? Haven’t we got an ample supply of them? :?:   :?:   :?:

    Snark is easy … what’s difficult is to unite civic passion with scientific reason … a task at which famed ecologist Ed Wilson succeeds admirably:

    Excerpts from Naturalist
    by Ed Wilson

    Without a trace of irony I can say that I have been blessed with brilliant enemies. They made me suffer (after all, they were enemies), but I owe them a great debt, because they redoubled my energies and sent me in new directions. We need such people in our creative lives. As John Stuart Mill once put it, both teachers and learners fall asleep at their posts when there is no enemy in the field.

    [As a student] I discovered the idea social environment for developing a scientist — or at least one of several possible ideals. It is the same as for a political revolutionary. Start with a circle of ambitious students who talk and work together and conspire against their elders in order to make their way into a particular discipline. They can be as few as two or as many as five; more than five makes the unit unstable. Give them an exciting new idea that can transform the disciplien and with which they can advance their ambitions: let them believe they own a central truth shared by few others, and therefore a piece of the future. Add a distant authority figure, in this case a scientist who has written a revolutionary text, or at least a circle of older revolutionaries to have generated the accepted canon. The farther away these icons are from their acolytes, the better. Bring on a local role model, an older man or woman who who promotes The Idea and embodies in their character and working habits the ideals of the youthful discipline.

    The worst thing that can happen, will happen, is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.

    I was, I will confess now, unforgiveably late in arriving [as an environmental activist]. Biodiversity destruction had troubled my mind for decades, but I had made little overt response. In the 1950s, as I worked my way around bare red-clay gullies in Alabama and sought the vanishing rain-forests of Cuba, I knew something was terribly wrong. My apprehension grew as I pored over the list of endangered and extinct animal species in the Red Book of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

    As the 1970s passed, I wondered: at what point should scientists become activists?

    I knew from hard experience that the ground between science and political engagement is treacherous. I was gun-shy from the sociobiology controversy. Speak too forcefully, I thought, and other scientists regard you as an ideologue; speak too softly, and you duck a moral responsibility.

    I hesitated on the side of caution. […] I thought “Let the next generation do it.”

    For resisting the quadruple scientific temptations of snarky – selfish – simplistic – shortsightedness,, GOOD ON YAH, ED WILSON [AND NAOMI ORESKES TOO]   ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    • Fan, Are you joking? You’ve raised snark to an art form here on climate etc. Your every post drips with it. Yikes. The hypocricy is stunning.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Pokerguy, no-one has yet detected “snark” in any of Ed Wilson’s scholarly works … like Wilson’s recent, remarkable Seminar About Long-term Thinking, for example.   :!:   :!:   :!:

        That’s why Wilson’s works are well-worth contemplating!   ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

        Whereas cherry-picked climate-change “snark” is instantly forgotten, eh?   ;)   ;)   ;)

      • The proper comparison would not be do compare his scholarly work with her blog writings. Different audience. Different Purpose. Entails a different choice of rhetorical tools.

        So, you either compare their scholarly ( edited by others, vetted by others, published by others) work. Or you find work he did where he was writing to a similar audience using a comparable medium.. say one with no editorial intervention.

        All writing happens in a situation. I write to you in a place for a purpose. All those factors control the range of rhetorical tools that may or may not be effective.

        Like smiley faces. Wllson never used them. But it would be silly to make that comparison. You use them here to define your character and your attitude. It works for some ( i find it charming on occasion) and others find it annoying. ( meanies). So, just a short lesson in comapring styles and devices. Hope that helps

      • pokerguy

        If you are good at your game, you must be highly observant. How then did you miss the entire of FOMD’s comment before deciding to respond to it?

      • FOMD – apologies – we crossed.

    • More scientists should speak out.
      Jeremy Grantham should be more careful about what he wishes for.

  47. Lucia

    At least with respect to global surface temperatures warming is not happening faster than predicted by models. Observed warming is on the low end of the range predicted by models used in the AR4.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models/

    The president is incorrect.

  48. Chief Hydrologist

    ‘The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and as long as they continue to do so they put all our futures in jeopardy.

    My diagnosis is a twofold ethical failure: of pragmatism and perspective (or, more eloquently, of “sense and sensibility”). Many environmentalists argue that climate change is fundamentally a values problem. And yet their interpretation of this has taken a narrow moralising form that systematically excludes consideration of such important ethical values as improving the lives of the one billion people presently living in unacceptable poverty, or even protecting other aspects of the environment.

    That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals based almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as both the problem and the solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space.

    These foundational errors have induced a kind of millenarian meltdown in many otherwise sensible people, to the extent that to be an environmentalist these days is to fear the oncoming storm and know that all hope is lost. To put it mildly, people in this state of mind are not well placed to contribute helpfully to the political debate about what we should do about the fact of climate change. In their reconciliation with despair, environmentalists are not only mistaken, but display a disturbing symmetry with those opponents of action who are mistakenly complacent about the status quo. My recommended treatment, to reinvigorate their confidence as well as their ethics, is a dose of economic reasoning.’ http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/09/14/3590260.htm

    It is not merely the debate on climate change that has gone badly wrong – but impetus to restoration and conservation of global ecosystems is subsumed under a single obsessive fear. There is glacial progress – yet moralising by fan doesn’t do it for me. Funny about that.

    The other theme in this post – again – is the stubborn denial of a natural cooling influence. And yet there is a theory – obvious for many years – for why the world is not warming for a decade or three more at least.

    ‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”’ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

    Go figure.

    • I like this last summary sentence of the article you linked to:

      ““These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

      But this article puts the whole thing in nice perspective:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/blaming-the-pdo.html

      It’s the whole long-term vs. short-term, anthropogenic versus natural variability thing. No climate scientist of with any credibility at all denies the influence of the PDO, but neither do they deny the long-term implications and climate forcing of increasingly higher concentrations of GHG’s.

      • “…but neither do they deny the long-term implications and climate forcing of increasingly higher concentrations of GHG’s.”

        They may have to in the end as the ‘forcing’ is a no show so far.

      • Does anyone in ‘climate science’, pro or lay, know how this non-observable Carbon dioxide forcing figure was calculated?

      • Myrrh

        You ask:

        Does anyone in ‘climate science’, pro or lay, know how this non-observable Carbon dioxide forcing figure was calculated?

        IPCC uses the estimate by Myhre et al. for calculating the (no-feedback) 2xCO2 forcing and temperature response:

        http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm

        Using this formula, the radiative forcing from added CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 Wm-2 and the no-feedback 2xCO2 temperature response is ~1°C.

        [There are other formulas and estimates listed by Hansen 1988 and Shi 1992, which arrive at a temperature response of 0.85°-1.2°C. Not listed is an estimate by Lindzen, which arrives at a figure of 0.65°C.]

        In a footnote, IPCC tell us:

        The constant in the simplified expression for CO2 for the first row is based on radiative transfer calculations with three-dimensional climatological meteorological input data (Myhre et al., 1998b).

        We can then check the cited Myhre et al. study, which states in the Abstract:

        http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf

        We have performed calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) since pre-industrial times. Three radiative transfer models are used. The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.

        Reading further, we see that the model-derived estimate is based on theoretical deliberations plus spectral band data for CO2 from HITRAN-1996.

        The HITRAN-1996 spectral band data base is here:

        http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Download/HITRAN96.pdf

        So, to answer your question, the no-feedback 2xCO2 climate sensitivity used by IPCC is a model-derived figure, based on theoretical deliberations and laboratory-derived spectral band data, rather than on empirical evidence from real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation.

        And that’s the problem many skeptics have with this figure.

        This would be OK in itself.

        But the problem is compounded by model-derived feedbacks, which end up increasing the theoretical 2xCO2 response by a factor of 3 or more.

        That’s where I am rationally skeptical.

        And I will remain so until someone can show me empirical scientific evidence to support a mean 2xCO2 temperature response of 3°C, which no one has been able to do, so far.

        [As a matter of fact, the past CO2 and temperature record would indicate a 2xCO2 temperature response of between 0.8°C and 1.4°C, rather than 3°C.]

        Max

      • Max,

        Myhre estimate is reached combining empirically thoroughly verified information on interaction of IR with gases and clouds with empirically observed properties of the atmosphere. The theory needed in the calculation is solid and confirmed extensively by laboratory experiments as well as empirical work in real atmosphere.

        The main source of uncertainty relates to the accuracy and completeness of the empirical data on the properties of the atmosphere. I haven’t seen current estimates on the accuracy of the value 3.7 W/m^2, but based on what I have read I believe that the uncertainty is less than 10%, perhaps around 5%.

      • Thank you Max. I’ve been puzzled where this claimed ‘heat trapping’ capability of carbon dioxide comes from, it’s clear from the fake ‘experiments’ they produce for the gullible public that they have no intention of showing this..

      • Chief Hydrologist

        For the umpteemth time – the observations suggest intensification of the cool mode over the next decade or three. No warming at least for this period as the current cool mode intensifies.

        It is really a Pacific thing – rather than just the PDO – as the NASA article makes clear. An intensification of ENSO events associated the phases of the PDO.

        I don’t read skepticalscience – I prefer a reputable source.

        ‘Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.

        Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        Shorter term – it is the Pacific that was the dominant cause of recent warming and is the current source of restrained warming. Longer term – it is the ‘richness of the El Nino behaviour’ that dominated variability on the scale of the last 1000 years. By no means does it add up to zero on any scale. Natural variation dominates and we have by no means seen the limit of natural variability.

        These are chaotic climate shifts – emergent behaviour – that will shift again unpredictably. That’s where any real risk emerges from.

      • Chief Hydrologist says:

        “…the observations suggest intensification of the cool mode over the next decade or three…”
        ______
        Simple extrapolation of previous “apparent” trends? Very unreliable as a predictor of actual future trends. Given that the Earth system of 2012 does not equal the Earth system of 1940 or any other recent year, it gets even more speculative. Best to go with known forcings, known climate dynamics, and laws of thermodynamics don’t ya think? These won’t get us the natural variability part (so you could be right in your cooling for a decade or three forecast, but wrong as to the reasons), but I’d rather go with science and math and physics than extrapolation of prior trends based on an Earth system that no longer exists.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce…

        It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. op.cit

        I would rather focus on ‘observing and understanding’. If you are content with simple radiative physics – it is not my problem but you miss out on all of the richness and complexity from which uncertainty emerges.

        We are certainly, however, in a cool Pacific multi-decadal mode. This is not a prediction but an indisputable fact – as described in the NASA article. These last for 20 to 40 years in the proxy records. There are longer term variations as well with El Niño dominant periods around the modern period and the Medieval optimum – with La Niña dominant in the interim.

        ‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific Basin, however evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here we report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western Equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequently, reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 years, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below average (El Niño-like) epochs, 1000-1260 AD and 1920-2009 AD, and a longer above average (La Niña-like) epoch from 1260-1860 AD. Spectral analysis shows the below average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2-5 years, while the above average epoch is associated more with variability around 6-7 years. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910-2009 AD) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and south-eastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

        Most recent warming – if we believe ERBE, ISCCP-FD and more recently CERES – was largely the result of cloud cover changes. This has been correlated with the IPO – Pacific wide changes that occur over many time scales. I much prefer data to speculation.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

        Although we have seen in the last hundred year the shifts adding to warming and alternatively subtracting from warming. It seems unlikely that this pattern will repeat. It seems more likely that – as we retreat from the 1000 year high in El Niño frequency and intensity – that the pattern could well be hiding the warming and then more hiding of the warming. It must be remembered that these shifts – spontaneous reorganisation of the system when climate is pushed past a tipping point – is chaotic and therefore in principle deterministic but incalculable.

        ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation .’ McWilliams 2007, PNAS

      • R Gates.

        Best to go with known forcings, known climate dynamics, and laws of thermodynamics don’t ya think? These won’t get us the natural variability part (so you could be right in your cooling for a decade or three forecast”

        Kool-Aid stuff. There are no known forcings since none have been demonstrated to exist, they are only speculative hypotheses incorporated into failed climate models.

        The sun looks like it is indeed setting about delivering “natural variability” for the next few decades. We’ve been waiting for these so called ‘forcings’ for the best part of 30 years now, still no sign of them. They’d better hurry up because if solar “natural variability” is about to make life cold for the next 3 decades then we are going to need those mythical forcings soon. Where are they ?

      • R. Gates

        It appears to me that there are two ways to “predict” future climate:

        – one way is to study past climate and look for repetitive trends or cycles – and to project that these will repeat themselves, due to unknown or ill-defined cyclical drivers, such as changes in ocean currents, etc. (Girma’s approach); a variation of this approach is to study these cyclical factors in detail and see if it’s possible to define some sort of pattern in their behavior (Chief)

        – a second way (the IPCC approach) is to take one theoretical aspect (greenhouse forcing) and build everything up around this one principal “climate control knob”, essentially ignoring other factors as “noise”, and project the changes in this one driver plus the resulting climate change.

        The first approach tends to be primarily empirical while the second is primarily theoretical.

        The first approach is derided by the theoreticians as simple “curve fitting”, because it does not provide a well-defined, plausible theoretical mechanism for the observed changes.

        Yet it has become clear over the past 15 years that the second approach doesn’t work over decadal time periods, where the principal driver (human GHGs) have increased unabated to record levels, with projected temperature increase of 0.2C per decade, yet temperature has not changed.

        [And it all looked so simple back in 1998, when the record heat could be blamed on AGW.]

        Max

      • Max,

        IPCC tries to estimate the strength and consequences of AGW because it’s task is to do that. It does it using results of climate science. It’s a total mischaracterization of climate science to imply that the real Earth system and the natural variability were not studied as those are almost the only thing that are being studied.

      • Chief Hydrologist says:

        “Shorter term – it is the Pacific that was the dominant cause of recent warming and is the current source of restrained warming. Longer term – it is the ‘richness of the El Nino behaviour’ that dominated variability on the scale of the last 1000 years. By no means does it add up to zero on any scale. Natural variation dominates and we have by no means seen the limit of natural variability.”

        _____

        There is no doubt that ENSO is the source of a great deal of the short-term climate variability but thankfully, we do have the means to filter out this short term ENSO behavior and other natural variability and see what might be left. Also, on the longest time scale you want to postulate that ENSO is operating, it is a zero-sum game. There is no long-term forcing from ENSO behavior. Even in a period that favors El Ninos, we are simply see more energy leaving the ocean than during ENSO neutral or La Nina periods.But this is just stored solar energy that was already in the system anyway. Slowly accumulating greenhouse gases. building up over decades and centuries, gradually are restricting the rate of energy flowing from ocean to atmosphere and back to space. One would expect then to see a gradual accumulation of that energy both in the ocean and secondarily, in the atmosphere, though the atmospheric thermal storage and thermal inertia is quite puny compared to the oceans, so you’re going to get a lot more variability there.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Again it is quite evidently not true that ENSO doesn’t affect cloud cover. For instance. ‘El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). ‘ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

        Unless you incorporate this – it just doesn’t make sense.

      • Chief,

        Did someone say ENSO did not affect cloud cover? Where was that stated? Certainly ENSO does affect cloud over and ENSO is affected by cloud cover. It is a two-way street. ENSO, the QBO and SSW events all seem to have a interaction that goes both ways and involve moving huge amounts of energy from ocean to atmosphere and eventually to space. The interplay of these three is one of energy accumulation, transport, and dissipation within the Earth system. The trillion dollar question is: What role does introducing an external forcing such as significantly altering atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases play in this QBO-ENSO-SSW dynamic?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oh for God’s sake – if you are stating that ENSO doesn’t change the global energy budget the only conclusion is that clouds don’t change. Do you forget that I have had this conversation with you before? Cloud cover is anti-correlated with sea surface temperature. And as Andy Dessler said – no one is suggesting that clouds cause ENSO. ENSO is a phenomenon of upwelling cold water in the eastern and central Pacific. It means that the energy is in the other direction from what you suggest. Into the oceans in El Nino and out during La Nina.

        The role of the Quasi-biennial oscillation and of sudden stratospheric warming are a side show. The QBO is about upwelling in the tropical regions, SSW upwelling in the Arctic and is certainly related to the Arctic Oscillation. All of these indices – including ENSO – are best seen as network nodes expressing aspects of the underlying dynamic system.

        ‘By analyzing a lagged covariance structure of a network of climate indices, this study details the AMO-signal propagation throughout the Northern Hemisphere via a sequence of atmospheric and lagged oceanic teleconnections, which the authors term the “stadium wave”. Initial changes in the North Atlantic temperature anomaly associated with AMO culminate in an oppositely signed hemispheric signal about 30 years later. Furthermore, shorter-term, interannual-to-interdecadal climate variability alters character according to polarity of the stadium-wave-induced prevailing hemispheric climate regime. Ongoing research suggests mutual interaction between shorter-term variability and the stadium wave, with indication of ensuing modifications of multidecadal variability within the Atlantic sector. Results presented here support the hypothesis that AMO plays a significant role in hemispheric and, by inference, global climate variability, with implications for climate-change attribution and prediction.’ http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/

        However – the albedo term and therefore the global energy budget is most clearly linked to the ENSO node. There was much idle speculation that global warming caused the “Great Pacific Climate Shift’ in 1976/77. The reality is that ENSO caused most of the recent warming through the albedo effect – at least that is the satellite data says. The turnaround since 1998 suggests that ENSO is driven by other factors predominantly. I have a theory involving the polar annular modes and flow in the Peruvian and Californian Currents.

      • Chief H20’ist said:

        ” It means that the energy is in the other direction from what you suggest. Into the oceans in El Nino and out during La Nina.”

        and also said:

        “The reality is that ENSO caused most of the recent warming through the albedo effect – at least that is the satellite data says.”

        _____
        Yes, we’ve had this conversation before and I continue to completely disagree with your assessments. ENSO causes warming in the troposphere because it releases more energy from the oceans to the troposphere then during ENSO neutral or La Nina conditions. A simply look at ocean heat content following the 1997-98 El Nino shows this quite readily. If it was about mainly the clouds, then we’d see ocean heat content increase during El Ninos. Finally, as is often the case at the end of an El Nino, the QBO turns easterly and combines then with a strong SSW and all that heat (that came originally out of the big ocean storage tank of energy, aka Western Pacific Warm Pool etc.) passes up through the stratosphere, into the mesosphere and out into space, thereby contributing to the entropy of this universe and slow but steady unwinding to it’s eventual heat death.

        As an interesting feedback process from the SSW event, we see a sudden cooling in the tropical stratosphere as all this heat goes out the top of Arctic stratosphere and the an increase in convective activity along the equator, and the cycle begins again.

        An intermediary step in this process that I left out is of course the role of the MJO in the advection of heat and moisture from the tropics northward and upward. We often see a significant MJO event as a “preconditioning” event to the SSW. This is often dubbed a “pineapple express” on the West Coast of the U.S. We saw one in early 2009, just a few weeks prior to the 2009 SSW event. This “pineapple express” MJO event was an express indeed, as this was energy that was eventually bound to leave the Earth system a few weeks later in the major SSW event that was strong enough to split the Arctic vortex, warming the Arctic and pouring very cold air down over Europe and N. America. So, for future reference, when you see a “pineapple express” develop over the U.S. West Coast in the winter, get ready for a very cold outbreak somewhere over the NH a few weeks later as that express is like an arrow aiming right toward the Arctic vortex. Neato, eh?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Again – here is the data – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Wong2006figure7.gif – both ERBS and ocean heat content from satellite altimetry. We do indeed see an increase in net radiation (all shortwave) in the 1998 El Niño and a increase in ocean heat content – followed by a decrease in net radiation and ocean heat content in the 1999/2000 La Niña. Well correlated indeed. The graph comes from here – http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

        Interesting as all these systems are – and the Madden-Julian oscillation is very quirky indeed – the energy pathways are extremely complex indeed as I keep saying and ultimately can only be accounted for at TOA.

        To borrow a graph from Norman Loeb – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=CERES_MODIS-1.gif – clouds seem to be a major player in the system.

      • Chief,
        During the largest El Nino of the past 20 years—the 1997-98 event, Pacific Basin Ocean heat content as measured down to 700 meters was reduced by about 50%. This is of course an incredible amount, but all that heat was transferred nicely to the troposphere, making 1998 one of the top 3 warmest years on instrument record. But that’s not all, all that heat had to go somewhere, and in the winter of 1998-1999 we saw a very strong SSW event as the heat was transferred from troposphere to stratosphere to mesosphere and out into space.
        You are just flat out wrong about your ENSO understanding of ocean heat content Chief. Please take a look at the actual data for the Pacific Basin here:

        http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-p0-700m.dat

        And line it up with the ENSO graph over this period. El Nino’s are times when the oceans (especially the Pacific) release more heat than they do during ENSO neutral or La Nina periods. There is no way around this basic physical fact. That’s why the troposphere warms, and that’s why during the winter following a large El Nino period (like the winter of 1998-99 following the 97-98 El Nino, or the winter of 2003-2004 following the 2002-2003 El Nino) we get a sizable SSW event. That energy went from ocean to atmosphere (El Nino) and then to space (SSW event).

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Willis et al. (2004) provides new estimates of annual global ocean heat storage for 1992–2002 using a combination of improved in situ temperature profile sampling and constraints on thermal expansion from satellite global ocean altimeter observations. The major advantage of this dataset over previous ocean estimates is the use of global altimeter data to supplement sparse in situ sampling in the Southern Hemisphere oceans. On a global annual scale, the change in TOA net radiation and ocean heat storage should be in phase and of the same magnitude. This is due to the fact that all other forms of heat storage in the earth system are factors of 10 or more smaller than ocean heat storage (Levitus et al. 2001). Previous ocean heat storage datasets required 5- to 10-yr averages to reduce sampling errors. The Willis et al. (2004) analysis demonstrated a sampling error of 0.4 W m2 (1) for global annual ocean heat storage. Figure 7 gives a direct interannual comparison of these new ocean heat storage data from 1993 to 2003 against those from the 12-month running mean ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Edition3_Rev1 and
        CERES/Terra Scanner ES4 Edition2_Rev1 net flux anomalies. The CERES/Terra Scanner results are global and the ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV results cover 60°N to 60°S (or 87% of the earth’s surface). The net flux anomalies are calculated with respect to the 1985–89 period. They are basically deseasonalized anomalies similar to those shown in previous figures. A 12-month running mean filter has been applied to the TOA radiation data to reduce the temporal sampling noise and to match up directly with the corresponding time scale of the ocean storage data.’

        http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

        You should look more closely at sea level rise,

      • R. Gates ref. SSW Events

        http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056438481

        There is a German site that has a lot of information that these guys use plus quite a few other links. Caution though! They are weather geeks.

    • PDO magnitude: 0.2 deg C
      Long-term average: zero
      Importance to climate change: none

    • That narrowness also leads to self-defeating policy proposals based almost entirely in the economy of nature rather than political economy. The result is a fixation on global CO2 levels alone as both the problem and the solution, at the cost of systematic and broad evaluation of the feasible policy space. [emphasis added -hro]

      Aye, there’s the rub … if not the nub and/or the hub!

      For all the gazillions that have been expended on so-called “climate research” in the past twenty years, I have yet to see any verifiable empirical evidence (as opposed to computer-generated outputs) that human-generated CO2 is the PRIMARY CAUSE of whatever global warming, aka climate change, might (or might not) be occurring.

      It’s not inconceivable that Obama may be as much a victim of the “brainwashing” – conducted by, for example, the far from impartial BBC – as John and/or Jane Q. Public.

      In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if anyone ever asked Obama (or any other green-growther celebrity-activist) what percentage of GHGs (let alone the earth’s atmosphere) is comprised of human-generated CO2, his answer would be quite similar to the response I receive when I pose the question to those in my social circle who challenge my arguments with the all too familiar trope of “oh, but all those ‘expert’ scientists can’t be wrong”. Their answer is, invariably, “I haven’t a clue”.

  49. There is a gnawing uncomfortable feeling I have that the great fiscal precipice looming after December 31st could result in a decrease in GNP of 4%, accompanied by a recession, a double dip recession. Going over that cliff may mean money for a green agenda will disappear over that cliff as well. Congress knows that defense budgets will require shoring up; entitlement spending will be downsized, and government will get smaller.

    I don’t advocate playing out this scenario as the uncertainty of our recovery from a second recession is likely to usher in significant social changes, subject to the escalating screeches of ever more radical voices.

    We have a fresh example of extremism fostering fatalism: a strike which ended in liquidation of Hostess Industries. Loss of 18,000 jobs even though the work force was only 1/3 unionized. The nays carried the day. What will 18,000 people do after their jobless benefits run out? How many other ailing industries will be struck and choose to fail? Hostess did not have the time or resources to be refreshed and made anew. Rather, as an already crippled company, in the face of a strike, management bailed.

    After the cliff, windmills will be un-subsidized and solar energy will become just a reflection of wishful thinking. Righty that these testaments to environmentalism’s intransigence will be abandoned. But what happens to new energy technologies? There will be no money for R&D for them. And, as the Germans have gone back to coal from their windmill and nuclear past, we will go back to coal fired energy as the cheapest, and only energy we can afford. We would be mired in 2013 for 50 years.

    Borrowing money from China to fund environmentalism or anything else will not be possible. Borrowing money from anyone will be dubious since the rates will be extortionist.

    Not going over the fiscal cliff seems warranted even if Obama keeps Lisa Jackson in EPA. Or, as a bone to toss to the Republicans to raise taxes, Obama can always throw Lisa Jackson and the EPA’s endangerment finding under the bus.

    Did I just read something in the recent news that politics can make new & strange bedfellows?

    • RiHo08

      Did I just read something in the recent news that politics can make new & strange bedfellows?

      Look for the POTUSA to become the “oil shale boom king” (extracting enough from the operators to balance the budget and fund pet projects / reward supporters along the way, as some howling “greenies” are tossed under the bus).

      “Drill, baby, drill!”

      Max

    • RiHo08,

      Good comment. An interesting comment by Professor Judith Sloan arguing a similar point of view appeared in yesterday’s The Weekend Australian. It’s behind a paywall so I’ll extract some.

      Cliff hangers go jump; let’s talk about discretionary spend

      I AM one of the few economists around who thinks the appropriate response to the fiscal cliff in the US is to jump. Everyone else wants congress to dream up some sort of compromise that will only kick the can down the road.
      So, if there is a choice between the two, I’m voting for the Thelma and Louise option.
      We should recall that the fiscal cliff did not appear out of thin air. It was explicitly negotiated by congress to put pressure on the government to face up to the fiscal fiasco confronting the US.
      The numbers are vast. The US has been running budget deficits in excess of 7 per cent of GDP – in excess of a trillion dollars annually – and government debt has soared from just over 50 per cent, pre-GFC, to 73 per cent.
      Unless some sort of bodgie deal between the President and congress is reached before the end of the year, the fiscal cliff will involve an automatic reduction in the budget deficit of some $US600 billion or nearly 4 per cent of GDP.
      I am not very happy about the content of the fiscal tightening. Only $US130bn is shaved off expenditure, the rest taking the form of various types of tax increases, including the reversal of various temporary cuts that have been enacted over the past several years. The effect of the increases will be to hike up marginal tax rates, which will dampen work-effort incentives.
      I would be much keener if the bulk of the fiscal tightening took the form of reduced spending rather than tax increases, but it is hard to see how this could be achieved politically at this stage.
      There is a very real difference between going over the cliff and doing nothing on future budget deficits, and the associated level of government debt is huge. Without any action, deficits in the order of 5 per cent of GDP will be the pattern over the next 10 years, with net debt about 90 per cent of GDP at the end of the period.
      The alternative will mean budget deficits of about 1 per cent can be achieved and debt will come in about 60 per cent in 10 years.
      Rather than add to the debate about the supposedly dire implications of going over the cliff – I say: get on with it, there is never a good time – what I want to talk about is the lack of discretionary spending in the US federal budget. There are some strong parallels with the situation that is emerging in Australia.
      It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of the US federal budget is essentially non-discretionary, in the sense the spending is locked in, mainly by statute. There are no available means, at least in the short term, to alter the yearly amounts expended. Chief among these non-discretionary items are social security and health.
      On the face of it, the budgetary position of the Australian government looks in much better shape – obviously in terms of the deficit and government debt, but also in terms of flexibility. Social security and welfare make up more than one-third of Australian government general expenses; health another 16 per cent and education 8 per cent. Of course, large slabs of spending on other functions are also effectively locked in, but there is some scope to reduce spending at the margin.
      Notwithstanding Australia’s superior budgetary position, it is important to note the trends in countries such as the US, particularly in relation to entitlement programs, as a warning of what can happen unless evasive action is taken.
      Take, for example, the US’s food stamps program. Conceived in the depths of the Great Depression by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, the very poorest in the community – 1 to 2 per cent of the population – were provided with stamps to purchase certain foodstuffs. (The program has always had the support of the farming lobby.) Over the years the program has been expanded several times and it is estimated that nearly 15 per cent of the US population is now in regular receipt of food stamps.
      A similar trend is apparent with the Medicaid program, which is designed to provide basic healthcare for the poorest members of the community. Now some one-fifth of the population is entitled to Medicaid assistance and recent numbers have grown at a greater rate than was anticipated by the US government using objective data. The average annual increase in government spending on Medicaid has been more than 8 per cent for 20 years.
      I raise these issues in the context of the prospect of Australia introducing a full-blown National Disability Insurance Scheme, the cost of which is expected to be at least $8bn a year.
      The use of the word “insurance” has always been misleading in the sense it is not anticipated that anyone will be paying explicit premiums for which there are payouts in the event of certain defined occurrences. Rather, the NDIS is a government program designed to better fund the needs of the disabled and to give them greater choice in the services they can access. All well and good, but one of the key issues remains how to draw the boundary between those who will be eligible to participate in the NDIS and those who won’t be. Those with profound disabilities, be they present at birth or acquired at a later stage, should be easy to identify. But there is a large grey area.
      During the current trial phase of the NDIS, governments have been approached by various lobby groups to include the persons they represent within the definition of disability. Examples include entreaties from associations representing people with arthritis and those suffering aphasia, a condition that is often experienced by stroke victims.
      Another issue emerging in the NDIS trials is the raised expectations of those participating. A figure of about $30,000 a year, on average, had been floated by the Productivity Commission as the minimum acceptable to calculate the total costs of the scheme.
      Some of those with milder forms of disability, and who currently receive much less in government-funded support, are pushing to receive what they see as a benchmark figure as soon as possible. The trouble is that those with serious disabilities currently cost much more in terms of government outlays. (one person in the Geelong trial receives more than $1 million annually in assistance.) The clear danger is costs will blow out, as the average becomes the minimum.
      Before Australia embarks on a full-blown version of the NDIS, we need to know what we are getting into. No one wants another example of wasteful big government – the NDIS will surely expand the size of government.
      We need to ensure that the boundary issues can be effectively dealt with and that appropriate resources are devoted to the beneficiaries on an individually assessed basis. The last thing we need is another entitlement program that grows like Topsy, but which fails to serve only those most in need.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cliff-hangers-go-jump-lets-talk-about-discretionary-spend/story-e6frg6zo-1226517934753

      RiHo08, I agree the wind and solar subsidies and all the green schemes have to go. The sooner the better. It seems the UK is leading the way in starting to recognise what an enormous waste of money they are. They are making the political case to disband them on the basis of the energy poverty they are already causing. It will get much worse.

    • RiHo08 an FYI, you might want to indulge in a little more info gathering re: the Hostess Liquidation; I can recommend this article on ZH for starters:

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/hostess-liquidation-curious-cast-characters-twinkie-tumbles

      Note particularly what *has* been tried in the way of financing and union givebacks and the recent ‘stiffening’ of the union when it came to negotiations.

      I also take exception to the claim of being 1/3 unionized; this does not in fact seem to be the case …

      _Jim

      • Jim

        Thank you for the link as the Hostess bankruptcy tale is convoluted.

        Key words that I took home have a familiar ring: Teamsters; unfunded pension liabilities; emerging from an earlier bankruptcy with a higher cost structure; so called vulture capital firms holding secured debt, and of course I was wrong: 18,500 lost jobs not 18,000. And the strike? Straw, camel’s back and all that.

        I think the summary statement from the article says much:

        “Sadly, in many ways Hostess is now indicative of that just as insolvent larger corporation, the USA, whose insurmountable balance sheet liabilities will be the eventual catalyst for its collapse, but only once the Income Statement and the Cash Flow sheet join in. For now, the Fed provides the flow needed to avoid the day of reckoning, but everything ends eventually.”

        Again, thank you for the link. Strangely, I found the article confirming what I had previously said. You apparently saw it differently.

      • RiH008, ““Sadly, in many ways Hostess is now indicative of that just as insolvent larger corporation, the USA, whose insurmountable balance sheet liabilities will be the eventual catalyst for its collapse, but only once the Income Statement and the Cash Flow sheet join in. For now, the Fed provides the flow needed to avoid the day of reckoning, but everything ends eventually.”

        True. The second wave of short sales just started down here. 60 cents on the dollar value so someone is eating 40. Wonder who dat is?

  50. Very interesting collection of weekly climate related subjects once again, and thank heavens President Obama understands that there is a problem. I agree strongly with the Science Christians Monitor article – we need to start adapting our environment, instead of the continuation of building and developing areas subject to changing elements, and the IPCC recommendation to include a skeptical view seems very wise. Unfortunately we will need to spend large amounts of time and money adapting our environment and communities, and we are not sure how much time we have. Whether the temperature is rising or not, measurable CO2 is steadily rising and I believe those who say the red line is around 450 ppm. A lot of work for both lay and scientists ahead, lets try and get a better consensus of what needs to be done. Also I’ve been watching an interesting program called Arctic with Bruce Parry which makes me understand some of the gravity of the problem. Interesting enough in small opinion poll in my country (New Zealand) opinion seems fairly divided 37% think we can do more : 36% don’t believe there is any problem, the rest don’t care certainly a work of work needed to unite public opinion, which I think is very important. I think as important to get a group spirit on tackling this as much as it was in WWII..Thanks for the opportunity to unload my opinion.

    • ConcernedBob

      “…CO2 is steadily rising and I believe those who say the red line is around 450 ppm.”

      By then temperatures will be heading down, unhappily for the co2 climate alarmists who thought the sun had no effect on climate. As the sun is heading for one of it’s regular-ish 200 year slow downs, temperatures can only go down, the problem is temperatures may go down to levels last seen when the river Thames in London froze.

      So I suggest you change your handle to
      ‘No longer concerned about co2 Bob’.

      • For the sake of my descendants I hope you are right and all those other distinguished people are wrong, but I am not prepared to bet and risk the lives of my future descendents on it.

      • As mentioned by other posters here, Professor Murray Salby of some Australian University has done the most extensive analysis of natural and anthropogenic co2 so far and has concluded that mankind is only responsible for 4% of the increase in co2 levels.

        This would mean that concern about mankind’s co2 emissions is misplaced to say the least. It also means that it is pointless destroying our economies in order to attempt to reduce our emissions as any effect will be immeasurable.

        Adaptation is the only sensible solution. The world didn’t self destruct when it was warm enough for the Romans to grow grapes as far North as Hadrian’s Wall, something we still cannot do today despite the trumpeted warming.

        If one wanted to reduce co2 emissions regardless then building windmills is about the least effective solution imaginable. Putting resources into other more down to earth projects such as heat pumps would produce a a far greater reduction in co2 for a much lower cost.

        Some subtle changes to legislation may also be useful, in the UK company car tax legislation actually discourages the take up of fuel efficient cars. It is actually cheaper for me to have a thirsty company car than a state of the art fuel efficient car. A ridiculous state of affairs.

        Research into better insulation for homes and businesses would also be worthwhile, where there is and will be before long a pressing need for retrofit technologies that will allow people to stay warm in their own homes without having to choose between warmth and food, an experience all too many pensioners in the UK are already familiar with and one which is set to get worse.

        We only need to worry about co2 if it turns out that it in fact causes or aids cooling, which may in fact be the case.

      • The conclusion of Professor Murray Salby is very strongly disputed, I suspect you want to believe him and not the equally eminent climatologists who dispute him. For myself I do not want to bet… I remain concerned

      • J Martin,

        You seem to have swallowed the pill that makes you assume that the LIA was primarily caused by a sleepy sun. Might want to rethink that. Here’s some things to help counter the effects of that pill:

        http://www.livescience.com/18205-ice-age-volcanoes-sea-ice.html

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16797075

        http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-erupted-little-ice-age-120203.html

        Now I know it is the accepted meme of the CNGC group to believe some combination of a sleepy sun, cool phase of the PDO, a new cool AMO, slowing down of the THC, etc. is going to launch the Earth into a period as cold, if not colder than the LIA, and that CO2 (that minor trace gas), despite being 40% greater in concentration that during the actual LIA, will have no consequence. But as pointed out in my last post to you, it will take something bigger…like a major volcanic eruption or series of them to provide any real negative forcing to counter the effects of increasing GHG’s. These other things (some of which probably show a response to increased volcanic activity) are just not going to get us into this Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling that you and others are so fond of holding on to.

      • I think Landscheidt got it right back in 1983 unlike Hansen. Volcanic activity increases at times of low solar activity, there is a graph somewhere, I had a quick look but couldn’t find it. So it would seem that whatever magnetic / gravitational effect or other effect that causes solar slowdowns also increases volcanic and earthquake activity.

        Thus it may indirectly via, largely the sun, though perhaps with a little help from an occasional volcano or through processes not yet understood eg. magnetism act to cause significant temperature drops that DO tie up with graphs of TSI and sunspots regardless of the fact that warmists cannot understand the mechanism.

        The fact that warmists cannot understand the mechanism or make the figures add up does not invalidate the fact that the LIA took place as did the Dalton minimum which you are no doubt going to tell me was also caused by volcanoes.

        Thanks for the link to the worthless and absurdly biased website of the BBC which had an article by Michael Mann’s lost twin Richard Black. You don’t seriously expect anyone to listen to a word he says do you ?

      • J Martin,

        Seems you are wanting to find a theory that explains it all, rather than looking at the complexity of the system and realizing that multiple forcings go into the making up the climate system. This is the same as trying to put percentages on the attribution of singular events (30% of Sandy caused by global warming, 50% of sea ice decline cause by global warming,etc.) Best to take a wholistic approach and understand that the LIA (which had global effects but was most severe in the NH) may not have occurred to the severity or length it did (it was actually more spotty than some might realize, except for Tony). if it were not for the large volcanic eruptions that got the whole party going. Did a quiet sun help? Probably. And changes to the AMO, etc. Possibly. But what is probably wrong to do is try and put all your eggs in one basket and look to one single magical cause of climate. Climate is the sum of all forcings, working in combination with all associated feedbacks and interconnections. A one cause fits all magical model (i.e. Landscheidt) just doesn’t work.

  51. Joshua, you say “Or then again, maybe the ideology that 47% of Americans are moochers turned out not to be an ideology that most Americans support. ” Might that be you, Joshua. I wonder how or who pays you Joshua. Are you a moocher, Joshua? Are you paid by taxpayers, Joshua? Your a classic blogoholoic. No person in the private sector has the time you do to bloviate all day and night.

    • Dang. You figure me out, Bob. Yes, I’m getting paid (with taxpayer’s money) to post comments at this blog. Quite handsomely, too, I might at. You should know that each time I get folks like you to post wacky theories, I get a bonus. You are exactly the type of folks my employers want to get the most riled up.

      • Joshua, I posted no theory, lest of not a wacky one. I think it is time for you to be audited. You’re a taker, most definitely not a maker.

      • makers include makers of Twinkies. Takers include members of our Armed Forces. Which are more valuable? Hard to generalize, isn’t it?

      • Bob – Whatever you’d like to call it, bob; it looks like a theory to me, but regardless your speculation and questions about whether I’m getting paid to post here are increasing my take. Please continue. My employers are loving it and the extra money for me certainly helps out.

        And Bob – the majority of the 47% are working poor, elderly, and disabled. Calling them moochers is not only inaccurate, it is also bad electoral strategy as well as classless. And bob – there are plenty of blogoholics in these here parts – do you think they are also on the taxpayers’ dime, or is it just me?

        Might I suggest that you get together with Peter Lang? – Between your theories about me getting paid by the government to post here, and his theories about how his posts caused Judith’s blog to be shut down temporarily, there is a great deal of imaginative creativity. There’s no end to what you two might accomplish if you combined your efforts.

      • “makers include makers of Twinkies. Takers include members of our Armed Forces. Which are more valuable? Hard to generalize, isn’t it?”

        So is Joshua a marine?
        Never liked Twinkies, much. But if military expenses were so high as make Twinkies bankrupt, then I think have cut military expenses.
        But as it is:
        “During FY 2011, the federal government spent $3.60 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up 4% vs. FY 2010 spending of $3.46 trillion and up 20% versus FY2008 spend of $2.97 trillion. Major categories of FY 2011 spending included: Medicare & Medicaid ($835B or 24%), Social Security ($725B or 20%), Defense Department ($700B or 19%), non-defense discretionary ($646B or 19%), other ($465B or 12%) and interest ($227B or 6%). ”
        So 3.6 divided by .7 trillion is 1/5th of federal government expenses.
        So if military expenses were 4 or 5 times higher than than what they are, then they would be moochers.
        Social Security is interesting. The people on Social Security probably paid in more money than they will get. But with private pension [or even well managed public pensions] the money you pay in is invested in profitable activity. With Social security the money was “invested” in government activity. This sort of like “investing” in alcohol or heroin.

      • My point was about this false divide ‘maker – good’ versus ‘taker – bad’. Takers include teachers, police, firemen, charitable organizations including religious ones, etc. The divide is not well thought through, although it sounds clever to free-marketeers.

      • “My point was about this false divide ‘maker – good’ versus ‘taker – bad’. Takers include teachers, police, firemen, charitable organizations including religious ones, etc. The divide is not well thought through, although it sounds clever to free-marketeers.”

        I think if a National church took 1/4 of a Nation’s GDP- it would be very bad.

        And of course teachers, police, and fireman are at the state level, and one thing about state government is they can only spend the money they get from state’s tax payers, unlike Federal government which can run up a 16 trillion debt.
        Of course one sound reason we want a federal able to run up a debt, is because wars can be costly and something one can’t really plan for.
        But federal debt, contrary to the propaganda, was not due to military spending.

      • Interesting distinction, so Medicare and Social Security recipients are bad because they are federal, but Medicaid and welfare recipients would be good because they are state?

      • Interesting distinction, so Medicare and Social Security recipients are bad because they are federal, but Medicaid and welfare recipients would be good because they are state?”

        All government is bad.
        Reasonable people realize a government is necessary.

        A government must accountable or becomes worse than bad.
        State government is more accountable.
        State government in some aspects can be in some ways worse than the Federal, but at least a State government is more accountable.
        And a State can become bankrupt, and there isn’t much in terms of serious global consequences.
        When the federal government become bankrupt, many people outside the US will suffer- it has global impact in addition to national impacts.
        If US wants lead in maintaining global order, this desire comes with responsibilities.

      • Jim D

        There is a not-so-subtle difference between those who work for the state in some value-added function, such as teachers, firemen, police, municipal administration, etc. and those who are simply “taking” from the state because of their “need”.

        The first category are not really “takers”.

        The second category are.

        Admittedly, there are many among the “takers” who have a physical or mental disability, and are hence unable to “add value” to society by “working” – and the majority of voters in our representative democratic society believe that these people should be helped.

        If the “help” starts to cover those who are able to “work”, but simply choose not to do so, then it is being mis-spent.

        Max

      • David Springer

        Anonymous coward vs. anonymous coward. Ain’t that cute?

  52. Montford’s Hiding the Decline, A history of the Climategate affair, is now available in the US on Amazon.com.

    Dr. Curry, could you give us a review?

    • I have read it, a review will come soon, but I have a lead in post i need to do first. hopefully i will get to this before AGU, but it might be the xmas break before I get to this.

  53. Joshua, again no theory. Also, never heard of Lang. I worked 40 years in the private sector. It is liberating, Joshua. You’d be surprised at your potential once your separate from the government’s nipple. You would not have the time to post thousands of gobbled y gook comments. Your life might just become productive. Seriously, try it.

  54. (Be brave, be persuasive, be arrested!)
    Hmm …

    Modellers in cloud towers
    Whiling away the tenured hours,
    Tend ter fergit, models jest ain’t
    Reality.

    Silk -shirted coteries in the whispery corridors
    Of power, do not concern themselves
    With uncertainty in science, their mission is
    Consensus.

    A call ter action.Time ter bid the modellers
    Enter the political fray as advocates.
    Cloud tower join the corridors of power!
    Make the proletariat sit up, take notice and
    Obey.

  55. Particular Physicist

    So during campaigning Obama keeps quiet about his climate alarmism, but immediately in office he brings it out. What a sneak. Par for the alarmist cause I guess.

  56. Chief Hydrologist

    Tomas Milanovic would have you believe that if the sun’s output radiation level were to double over time, the earth’s climate would still be at the mercy of chaotic dynamics and we could not detect the shift in warming caused by the increase in input forcing.

    Experienced physicists know how to construct very similar “thought experiments” to puncture and therefore deflate weak arguments.

    Milanovic has no comeback to this except to say the forcing is hypothetical. But if he says this, he cannot defend his chaos argument. He is in what we refer to a logical trick box.

    It also explains why he only rarely comments here. It’s not good for his credibility to spout such easily refutable theories. Contrast this to Chief, who has the same argument, but has no credibility to lose, as he didn’t have any to start with. webnutcolonoscope

    A logical trick box aye? Hmmmm. Idiot comment of the month let alone week – perhaps even decade. I know – the most idiotic comment this millennia. There is so much wrong that I can only think to start at the last. As I have said before to him – someone with a tag fashioned after Cecil Terwillerger is aiming more for wit than authority.

    Obviously if the sun’s output doubled the sunburn as you collected the paper in the morning would be a dead giveaway and we would have to turn up the airconditioning quite a bit. Dynamical complexity – the physics theory that in complex and dynamic systems a small change in control variables destabilises the system feeding through multiple negative and positive feedbacks in sub-systems spontaneously reorganising itself into a new configuration – is totally immaterial because your arse just caught fire.

    As thought experiments go it is perhaps less thought and more experiment. I suggest next time he try this brain freeze experiment – http://theusualmayhem.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/brain-freeze-very-scientific-experiment.html – to unfreeze his brain. Does that come from living in Minnisota?

    Evidently I am wrong. There is nothing I can say about hypothetical forcings without ending up in a logical trick box. Not sure what that is but it sounds a terrible fate. Let’s try it as a thought experiment. The forcing equivalent to several hundred Watts per metre squared at the surface is hypothetical therefore I can’t defend dynamical complexity. Wait for it. Nothing yet. Is that Edward Lorenz and Rene Thom turning over in their graves? Do you think he means a logical paradox?

    ‘Søren Kierkegaard, for example, writes, in the Philosophical Fragments, that one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow. But the ultimate potentiation of every passion is always to will its own downfall, and so it is also the ultimate passion of the understanding to will the collision, although in one way or another the collision must become its downfall. This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think.’

    That sounds more likely. Webby has discovered something thought itself cannot think. The forcing is hypothetical therefore I cannot defend dynamical complexity. Very deep. A Kierkegaardian Paradox. I admit defeat.

    • David Springer

      Actually the sun has been growing steadily stronger to the tune of 30% over the earth’s history and for the past 4 million years we’re in an ice age thank you very much. Perhaps webnutcolonoscope or Big Butted Dipstick can explain how that happened.

      • Funny that David Springer needs help explaining this, as it is the explanation that Springer has always relied on.

        He thinks that all of nature is explainable by invoking the principle of Intelligent Design.

        Thanks to whoever pointed this out some months ago.

      • David Springer said:

        “Actually the sun has been growing steadily stronger to the tune of 30% over the earth’s history and for the past 4 million years we’re in an ice age thank you very much.”
        _____

        And of course, we have far less CO2 in the atmosphere than we did when the sun was weaker and the continents are in a different location…but other than that, it’s exactly the same planet!

      • David Springer

        Perhaps webnutcolonoscope or Big Butted Dipstick can explain how that happened.

        Exactly as R. Gates says. For a more detailed examination of the effect of CO2 forcing on the last 65Ma of climate see Hansen & Sato (2012):

        Solar luminosity is increasing on long time scales, as our sun is at an early stage of solar evolution, “burning” hydrogen, forming helium by nuclear fusion, slowly getting brighter. The sun’s brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m2 of solar energy, the 0.4 percent increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era.

        Continent locations affect Earth’s energy balance, as ocean and continent albedos differ. However, most continents were near their present latitudes by the early Cenozoic (Blakey, 2008; Fig. S9 of Hansen et al., 2008). Cloud and atmosphere shielding limit the effect of surface albedo change (Hansen et al., 2005), so this surface climate forcing did not exceed about 1 W/m2.

        In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from about 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic (Beerling and Royer, 2011) to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages (Luthi et al., 2008). The resulting climate forcing, which can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m2. CO2 was clearly the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic.

        And David, can you please try to convey your intellectual contempt for me with more wit and invention? Even Monkeys can screech, jump up and down and throw their own excrement at the object of their disapproval. I expect better from you. Let’s see some style, FFS.

      • David Springer

        @British Bollocks Dispenser and Unskeptical Warmist,

        Oh thanks. I wasn’t aware the faint young sun paradox had been solved by Hansen and was now settled science.

        BTW BBD, the sun hasn’t increased its output very much in 65my. It’s increased 30% over its lifetime of 4 billion years. 65my represents less than 1% of its lifetime, imbecile.

      • You are so stupid talking to you is pointless.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      He and Chief and others like them continue to think that the fluids surrounding us will completely obscure the energy balance. No they won’t. We all know that every time the sun goes down at night. It gets cold because we lack the radiative warmth of the sun’s direct rays … and whatever warmth is retained at night is modulated by the average humidity of the air, which will reduce the mean path of the outward radiating infrared. This essentially traps the warmth temporarily.

      Chief hates hypothetical thought experiments as well so I will bring this up again. What would happen if the sun’s average solar radiation increased by 1%? Would we need detailed meshed models of the atmosphere and ocean to figure out what the first-order response to this stimulus would be?

      A professor could place that as a question on a final exam and if you didn’t answer it with some good physical or engineering judgment you might actually flunk the course. I bet that David Young would write in the margin refusing to answer the question, blaming numerical limitations of climate algorithms, and Chief would just quote Tsonis and tell the professor that he was a Space Cadet.

      Down to 1% now? The answer to the previous question was bend over, put your head between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye.

      The answer to this 1% is probably a bit more subtle. It probably does about half of that in a solar cycle. There are of course many changes that propagate through the system – and there is every expectation that the system response will not be linear ‘first order’ responses. It is absurd to expect it to be. If we are talking about energy balances – these changes progagating through the system influence the albedo term.

      ‘Since then, by itself increasing CO2 concentrations of roughly 20ppm should have further added roughly 0.2 Wm2 to this top-of-the-atmosphere excess of absorption over emission. Assuming a mixed layer ocean depth of 200 m, an anomaly of roughly 1 Wm2 should in principle have been sufficient to drive roughly a 0.2C increase in global temperature since 2001/02. That such warming has not occurred suggests an internal reorganization of the climate system has offset this presumptive radiative imbalance, either via an anomalously large uptake of heat by the deep ocean or a direct offset of the greenhouse gas forcing by a shift in cloud forcing.’ S&T 09 – Has the climate recently shifted?

      The guy is a cult of AGW groupthink space cadet who can’t even get the groupthink right.

      • The change in a solar cycle is less than 0.1%, but is noticeable with rises and falls in temperature. Multiply this by ten and you might have some idea of the response to a 1% increase in solar energy.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        It is a hypothetical forcing. Whether it is double, 1% and 0.1% makes absolutely no difference. Hypothetically do we know what cloud will do? Hypothetically do we know other changes will propagate through the system. The system is nonlinear and thermodynamically nonequilibrium. Yes we need a supercomputer to analyse the complex physics – and even then it can only be done probabalistically.

        ‘Since then, by itself increasing CO2 concentrations of roughly 20ppm should have further added roughly 0.2 Wm2 to this top-of-the-atmosphere excess of absorption over emission. Assuming a mixed layer ocean depth of 200 m, an anomaly of roughly 1 Wm2 should in principle have been sufficient to drive roughly a 0.2C increase in global temperature since 2001/02. That such warming has not occurred suggests an internal reorganization of the climate system has offset this presumptive radiative imbalance, either via an anomalously large uptake of heat by the deep ocean or a direct offset of the greenhouse gas forcing by a shift in cloud forcing.’ Tsonis et al 2007 – A new dynamical mechanisms for major climate shifts

        There is no likelihood of a believable simplification of the system emerging any time soon. Thinking in linear terms in a nonlinear universe will be misleading.

      • The solar cycle is not hypothetical. It is measurable, and its effects are observable. This gives us a nice lab to understand forcing changes every 11 years.

      • I realized only recently how well the solar variability can be used to get an estimate for transient climate response for a time scale of a few years. Based on Lean and Rind (GRL 2008) I estimated the TCR as 2 – 2.2 K.

        Then I started to search information on similar earlier analysis and was surprised that the idea had not been discussed more widely. Finally I found the paper of Tung, Zhou and Camp Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response GRL, VOL. 35, L17707, doi:10.1029/2008GL034240, 2008.

        They get a little higher estimate 2.5 K based on use of more regional data. They argue for some further factors that might raise the value to 3.6 K. (I do still like my own simple estimate.)

        While Foster and Rahmstorf do not study a long enough period to reach the same accuracy for the coefficient as Lean and Rind, their paper provides some additional information. In particular their Figure 3 tells that the warming appears to be some 30% stronger for the Northern hemisphere than for the global temperature. That may tell about the influence of oceans in making the short term TCR significantly less than TCR would be over longer periods.

      • Yes, we have to realize that this TCS estimate is reduced by the full cycle being 11 years. A steady forcing like CO2 would be more effective by not having to reverse its deeper effect every cycle.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The websters hypothetical increase is what we were talking about. But at any rate linear thinking is not viable in principle. Lean and Rind used multiple linear regression and I quite like the approach. Still it all falls apart if the TOA flux is what the satellite records show it to be. Colour me skeptical.

      • Jim D

        True.

        But we cannot yet quantify (or even identify) all the mechanisms by which the sun affects our climate. So far we can only measure direct solar irradiance, which is arguably only a relatively small part of the total solar influence.

        IPCC mentions a few of these in AR4 WG1 Ch.2, but concedes that its “level of scientific understanding of solar forcing is low”.

        According to NASA, “Solar Cycle 24 is expected to have a below-average number of sunspots, the lowest of any cycle since 1928.”

        http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html

        What impact this is having or will have on our climate is unclear.

        I have seen studies postulating a solar connection with PDO, ENSO, etc., but these appear inconclusive.

        The work at CERN may shed some new light on one possible solar mechanism, but IMO there should be more effort on identifying and quantifying mechanisms by which the sun influences our climate.

        Max

      • I should perhaps add that solar forcing differs from GHG forcing as it’s influence is stronger at low latitudes and weak at high latitudes. It’s diurnal variation is also different and there are certainly other differences as well. Even so I would expect the overall strength of the forcing to be the dominant factor.

      • The skeptics should be encouraged that the measured solar forcing effects lead to similar sensitivities as those hypothesized for CO2 forcing. This might reduce their doubts and ideas of mysterious negative feedbacks coming into play.

      • Pekka, “In particular their Figure 3 tells that the warming appears to be some 30% stronger for the Northern hemisphere than for the global temperature. That may tell about the influence of oceans in making the short term TCR significantly less than TCR would be over longer periods.”

        More likely land/ land use amplification. If you look at regional, 44-64S has a trend of 0.7C per centrury from 1900 and 0.00C from 1980. That band of course has very little land area. If you back out the long term 0.7C per century you end up with the 0.8 to 1.6 range of “sensitivity” that seems to be growing more common. The real question is if that 0.7 is a long term natural variability or not. With the 1980 to 2011 trend being zero in 44-64S, natural looks pretty likely.

  57. To those who want to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, you have no control over it. It is a function of El Nino and La Nina.

    Look at the correlation of annual change in CO2 concentration to El Nino and La Nina => http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.3/compress:12/derivative/normalise

    During the warm PDO phase, the warming due El Nino is generally greater than the cooling due to La Nina. As a result, during the warm PDO phase, the global mean temperature has a warming trend. This warming trend results in increase in CO2 concentration.

    During the cool PDO phase, the warming due El Nino is generally less than the cooling due to La Nina. As a result, during the cool PDO phase, the global mean temperature has a cooling trend. This cooling trend results in decrease in CO2 concentration.

    Based on the above data, trying to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fool’s errand.

    • If what you claim is true, there was no medieval warm period

      • The CO2 in your chart is higher during ~1100 to 1550 AD. If you compare with the Neukom et al. 2010 southern South American reconstruction,

        The period around the MWP was generally warmer than 1400 to 1900 AD. It appears climate tends to wander around a tad.

      • Temperatures are currently the warmest they’ve been for over 400,000 years *

        *according to Girma

      • Girma’s attempt to connect CO2 solely to instrumental temperature is a waste of time, since it is TIME that has to be considered. If you compare the chart you posted with the chart I posted, CO2 lagged temperature by about 200 years between SSA and the Law Dome on the down side. It takes time for a large dynamic system to settle.

      • lolwot

        I prefer the following CO2 & Temperature record

        http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/paleoclimate

        Any way, the paleo data is not that precise.

      • Again that data shows no medieval warm period

      • lolwot

        Again that data shows no medieval warm period

        The CO2 and temperature data are for Antarctica (Vostock ice core) over the past 450,000 years. If you look closely, you’ll see that they do show the MWP, Roman Optimum, etc. as “squiggles” in the curve

        But for a better source of data on the MWP in Antarctica (Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica) see:
        Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T

        http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/31/2/127.abstract

        “The MWP…was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP”

        .

        Max

      • lolwot

        As Girma says, “the paleo data is not that precise.”

        He’s right. In fact, the subjective interpretation of dicey paleo proxy data from carefully selected time periods of our planet’s geological past is questionable to start with.

        When it is used to demonstrate attribution of climate change to CO2 (or any other forcing), or to claim that the current warming is unusual, this is not much better than reading tea leaves.

        Max

      • Manacker if you believe CO2 level is controlled by temperature not man then you believe there was no MWP:

      • lolwot

        Back to paleo data.

        One source, which is much more reliable than paleo stuff, is actual physical evidence.

        There’s not much of this in Antarctica, but the Alpine glaciers tell us quite a bit about past warm periods.

        Carbon-dated remains of ancient trees that are recovered far above the present tree line under receding glaciers tell us that it was warmer during earlier periods, such as the MWP or Roman Optimum.

        Some examples:
        Schlüchter et al. 2004 (Switzerland)

        http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/de/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf

        [MWP and other earlier periods warmer than today, but no temperature estimate given.]

        Patzelt 2009 (Austria)

        http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Patzelt_01.pdf

        [MWP ~900 AD slightly warmer than today, earlier periods even warmer.]

        I would not categorize these studies as “paleo data”, but rather “physical evidence”. Then there is a “paleo” study that confirms what the physical evidence shows:

        Larocque-Tobler et al. 2010 (Switzerland)

        http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/41052746/thousand-years-of-climate-change-reconstructed-from-chironomid-subfossils-preserved-in-varved-lake

        [mean July air temperatures were 1°C warmer than the climate reference period (1961-1990)]

        Max

      • Well the data shows current temperatures are far higher than Medieval temperatures

        This is based on the principle established by several serious climate skeptic posters here that CO2 levels are directly caused by temperature levels and man hasn’t significantly affected CO2 level recently.

      • lolwot

        You write:

        Manacker if you believe CO2 level is controlled by temperature not man then you believe there was no MWP

        – I believe the evidence shows that (atmospheric) CO2 is “controlled” by several things, including “temperature” (IPCC calls this the “climate-carbon cycle feedback”). Humans also play a role today, but the measurements show us that there is also something else at work (oceans, plants, biosphere?)..

        – I also believe the evidence shows that there was a global MWP, which was slightly warmer than today’s temperature.

        These two things are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to believe.

        Please explain.

        Max

      • lolwot

        “Well the data shows current temperatures are far higher than Medieval temperatures”

        The graph you just posted doesn’t even show temperature.

        Duh!

        Max

      • It does according to Girma and Lauri Heimonen and various other skeptics.

    • Girma incorrectly said:

      “To those who want to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, you have no control over it. It is a function of El Nino and La Nina.”
      _____

      Complete fail Girma. Where do you go to dig up such tripe?!

  58. Steady Eddie

    Not to put an edge on it, but BBD could also mean:

    Blindly Believing Dumbbell

    where “dumbbell” refers to the second meaning:

    dumb·bell   [duhm-bel]
    noun
    1.
    a gymnastic apparatus consisting of two wooden or metal balls connected by a short bar serving as a handle, used as a weight for exercising.
    2.
    a stupid person.

    But maybe “BBD” will tell us what it really stands for?

    Max

    • Then there’s:

      Bring Back Dystopia

      dys•to•pi•a
      noun

      A place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror.

      • Grow up, Max. This sort of sniggering together behind the bike sheds should be beneath us all. It makes you look *dreadful*.

      • BBD: They are just meeting you on your level.

      • And you are down there with the children too I see. Not very clever, David.

      • Not clever, just true.

      • BBD | Grow up, Max. This sort of sniggering [Bring Back Distopia] together behind the bike sheds should be beneath us all. It makes you look *dreadful*.

        Yes, naughty naughty Max – don’t you know left-wing ideologues have no place or time for humour. Especially when reminded of what they really stand for.

      • Auf Deutsch

        Böser Bekloppter Dummkopf

        “Angry, crazy doofus”

        Or does he just ACT that way?

    • > But maybe “BBD” will tell us what it really stands for?

      British Bull Dog:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davey_Boy_Smith

      • no it’s Blah Blah Duh, the scientific equivalent of a Valley Girl

      • A Valley Girl who has shown you up *twice* for the nonsense-spouting crank that you are, capn. And don’t you forget it ;-)

      • nonsense, you point out what is a minor error considering the point of the conversation and think you have accomplished something meaningful. OH uptake and discharge is nowhere near as simple as you believe.

      • A minor error? Stating that there was no permanent Antarctic ice prior to 800ka is not a minor error. It is categorical evidence that the speaker hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about.

        Presenting other people’s data upside down and then spinning some crackpot tale out of the relationship between a correctly-orientated curve is evidence of ignorance, sloppiness and a quite astonishing level of confirmation bias.

        You have utterly discredited yourself on this blog *just in exchanges with me*. Goodness knows what science-crimes you have committed in the past, before I came along.

      • Blah Blah Duh, the Parsimonious Valley Girl said, “A minor error? Stating that there was no permanent Antarctic ice prior to 800ka is not a minor error. It is categorical evidence that the speaker hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about.

        Oh is that incorrect? Odd, I thought there was no ice found on Antarctica that can be dated from before 800ka ago. Some areas the oldest base ice found is less than 200KA old. Since a large portion of the continent is below sea level I thought that sea level change and land sinking or rising under the changing weight of ice might be a factor. It is rather odd that the paleo data indicates that southern ocean temperatures have been rising since about 800ka ago.

        Presenting other people’s data upside down and then spinning some crackpot tale out of the relationship between a correctly-orientated curve is evidence of ignorance, sloppiness and a quite astonishing level of confirmation bias. I don’t recall presenting anyone’s data upside down without stating that I had inverted the data. I did present Martin’s do18 data in exactly the orientation that is was in the spread sheet I downloaded from NOAA paleo. I seem to recall comparing the timing of events between Martin and Herbert/Sikes archived data at the time and noting that after an initial “synchronizing” perturbation (interglacial) that the bottom water reconstructions developed an inverse relationship with the top water reconstructions, especially in the Eastern Pacific. I think a guy name Stott noted something similar. What was it, temperature leading CO2 I believe he said? Would it really matter if it was upside down or right side up if I was looking for changes in relationships?

        I would have to respect your opinion since you are the champion of Parsimonious reasoning.

      • capn

        1/ You can’t get off the hook by pointing to the age of the basal ice sheet. It is not an indicator of the existence of a permanent Antarctic ice sheet. If you had the remotest idea what you were on about, you would know this.

        2/ You didn’t realise what you had done because you hadn’t even bothered to read the paper from which you plundered the data. This was obvious at the time. If you persist in lying about this, we will go through the whole farce again, here, with quotes. You will look *twice* as bad. Not just incompetent and confused but *dishonest*, incompetent and confused.

        Do you wish to continue?

      • As a historical footnote to this valuable discussion, let me add that I once suggested BBD was an acronym for “Booger-Brain Dork”–a suggestion that did not long survive the moderator’s zingercidal disapproval, unfortunately. .

        And, of course, the above suggestion pre-dated my subsequent decision to commit my blogospheric labors to the noble work of building bridges between us “skeptics” and our greenshirt creep-out, hive-bozo, eco-Giap-crusher-crew wannabes on the opposite side of and actively pushing the CAGW taxpayer rip-off hustle.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I for one appreciate your efforts to build bridges between the millennialist cult of AGW groupthink space cadets and normal people.

        I am sure that in the annals of the climate war – your name will be especially revered as a peace maker. I am sadly not up to your Christian, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers standard. My inclimation is more the stomp on them like bugs kind. Don’t get me started. They are the worst kind of smug, self satisified, ignorant, superior, moralising cr@p artists it has ever been my misfortune to come across.

        You deserve a Nobel Prize mike.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Someone broke the thread again.

        Okay CH, I will say it for you:

        You were completely wrong about what S&T says about the implications for C21st warming. This statement is incorrect and misleading:

        S&T are not actually predicting warmer

        Wrong and misleading.

        You misrepresented S&T over the course of several threads in the promotion of a specious argument about the likely frequency, duration and significance of cooling episodes during this century.

        The very scientists you quote ad nauseam do not agree with your conclusions. And although I showed you the relevant quote from S&T more times that I can count, you were utterly incapable of reading/understanding the words in front of your nose. You have completely discredited yourself. All you had to do was *listen*, but no.

        What is actually worse is that despite being exposed as being entirely wrong, you haven’t got the decency to admit it and accept that this largely demolishes your position. You literally *cannot* say ‘sorry, I was wrong’. It’s *pitiful*.

        Which brings us to the appropriate and final absurdity. Here’s you, being your usual unpleasant blog crank self earlier:

        ‘The ability of space cadets to ignore evidence is constantly astonishing.’

        You have proved yourself to be a perfect space cadet and more besides, haven’t you? Nice work, CH. BBD – Booger Brain Dead

        Passive aggressive when not actually being aggressive and abusive. The cooling episode is fairly obvious – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703 – and should last another decade or three. The Tsonis papers are about climate shifts. Chaotic bifurcations in the instrument record.

        For those unaware – Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication. I am as I keep saying a climate catastrophist (in the sense of Rene Thom) and refuse to predict past the current cool state. These states are inherently unpredictable.

        Swanson and Tsonis stated in their 2009 paper that these shifts imply sensitivity and that warming may well be greater than predicted in this century. It may well be cooler. There is no theoretical justification that these spontaneous reorganisations of the climate system – and of cloud cover especially – will be to cool or warm. S&T09 did not predict warming because as they are well aware – unlike BBD – this mechanism they are talking about (A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts) is in principle deterministic but practically incalculable.

        So my calm reply prompted this tirade of millennialist cult of AGW groupthink space cadet outrage. Simply because dynamical complexity leads to uncertainty. I keep suggesting that he Google the relevant terms and educate himself. But perhaps there are people who are unable to grasp this idea. The ill-informed arguments of the webster with Tomas come to mind.

        BBD is obnoxiously stupid and opinionated and has such a facile approach. This is definitely a pattern with the space cadets. As an unpleasant blog crank – the ability to ignore anomalous information is great and the toleration of dissention from the groupthink memes before descending into absurd hand waving tirades is negligible.

        As for saying it for me – thanks but no thanks

      • CH

        S&T09 did not predict warming because as they are well aware – unlike BBD – this mechanism they are talking about (A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts) is in principle deterministic but practically incalculable.

        But this is wrong. Not only do S&T predict warming, they predict more warming than predicted :-)

        Here, in their own words:

        warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models

        You keep going around in circles like a hamster in a treadmill. This is absurd.

        We still have a problem here which still needs clearing up.

        You were mistaken to claim that S&T09 does not predict warming. It does. In fact it goes further and cautions that:

        warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models

        Much of what you have said on several threads depends on a mistake, if that is what it was. So do you accept, given the unequivocal evidence, that you were mistaken?

        Yes, or no?

      • Before it gets lost in space, here’s the context from S&T09:

        Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].

      • Chief’s credibility is shot, if he had any to begin with. He may not be able to regain it for a decade or three.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        This is what we know both warms and cools the world – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        ‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

        Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”’

        Either understand it or stop wasting my rime with th odd angty snark.

      • Chief
        Here is a graph that supports your description above:

        http://bit.ly/RNiu2d

      • Chief Hydrologist

        aimed at webby of course – this threads gone to hell

        …ah… wasting my time with the odd angry snark is what I meant … but the other version is just as good…

      • You think Webster, Blah Blah Duh and Robert were all institutionalized together?

      • Look, I think Chief has a point. The whole point of the paper seems to be that we don’t know because variability is large. This just says to me that climate is always changing and we are not going to be able to predict it with any reliability. That’s not much comfort for us, but perhaps argues for adaptation.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        David,

        If you have not read it then – try this one – https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

        A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts.

        Worth a Nobel Prize in my opinion – along with the one for Mike for attempts to bring peace in the climate war between normal people and greenshirt creep-out, hive-bozo, eco-Giap-crusher-crew wannabe space cadets.

        Cheers

      • JCH, They might not have time to actually click,

        Abstract:
        Climate evolution during the last century has shown evidence of multi-decadal variability (1–8). One interpretation of non-uniformity of the global temperature trend is that it is due to a superposition of human-induced warming and a multidecadal climate oscillation (9–11). Evidence for such intrinsic climate variability has also been found in coupled general circulation models [GCMs] (12, 13, 14). Here we further explore this hypothesis by constructing a three-parameter statistical model of the global temperature evolution, in which we use the concept of the delayed-feedback oscillator (15) to represent intrinsic multi-decadal signal, the values of the parameters being determined from the observed data. The model predicts non-uniform temperature changes prior to, and a net warming by Year 2100, which is smaller than that predicted by GCMs. Rapid temperature rise in 1980–2005 is rationalized as the result of a warming swing of the multi-decadal oscillation reinforcing a small positive anthropogenic trend.

      • Hallelujah

        Here is the model for the above paragraph=> http://bit.ly/OsdxJf

        That is what the data says.

      • The nesting seems not to be working.

      • Tsonis Tsonis Tsonis.

        And, perhaps “worse” than Girma-like graphs.

      • The skeptics have now found models that they don’t question. Interesting phenomenon.

      • Jim D, true skeptics question everything and do basic estimates on their own. Some even try different frames of reference. BTW, what happens when you increase temperature with a constant relative humidity?

      • capt. d., CH seems to worship at the House of modeler Tsonis these days. Why are you asking about RH? However that gives you the first-order positive feedback of water vapor. Glad you asked.

      • Then we should see some first order water vapor feedback. BEST has Tmax and Tmin data with real absolute temperature estimates. Interesting stuff.

      • The continents are getting drier because the SST is not keeping up with the land heating. This is not constant RH, but worse for droughts. BTW, nice documentary on the Dust Bowl on PBS today and tomorrow.

      • Speaking of Dust Bowls, Khrushchev must have been jealous and made his own.

        I also hear there is a new paper out on soil, carbon, erosion and climate change. Wonder what that is all about?

      • JimD said, “Why are you asking about RH? However that gives you the first-order positive feedback of water vapor.” And “The continents are getting drier because the SST is not keeping up with the land heating.”

        Got all your bases covered I see.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Funny – I remember a discussion about McWilliams with Jim.

        ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision. ‘

        The bit I bolded is apparently all that you need to read if you’re Jim. The latter parts invoke probabalisitc forecasts.

        Having consulted Tim Palmer’s Lorenzian Meteorological Office

        ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

        The drought in the US is only getting worse. Negative PDO and positive AMO plays havoc with US rainfall. People have been saying this for years. Standing patterns change and redistribute rainfall globally. There is not much of a change in net global rainfall – only where it falls. Trust me – I’m a hydrologist.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Just realised that html code isn’t copied when you cut and paste. Should of thought of that before – it is the first sentence that should be bolded.

        The problem with Hansen is that he got the wrong bus. Most recent warming is not CO2 – it is albedo.

        http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

        If you have some other evidence – by all means let someone know.

      • David Springer

        Chief Hydrologist | November 19, 2012 at 12:47 am | Reply

        “The problem with Hansen is that he got the wrong bus. Most recent warming is not CO2 – it is albedo.”

        Technically speaking CO2 alters albedo.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

        For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Rhis I hav seen before and it is wrong.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I was replying to Springer – the link on CO2 and albedo is incorrect I believe.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Threadings gone to hell – time to call it a day.

        ‘This little essay of Chief’s needs to be graded against the Crackpot Index. It is certain to score off the charts.’

        I explain why Tsonis, McWilliams and Palmer as asked. To be called a crackpot by the webster is the ultimate in unintended irony. Humour is not his strong point. Over the top spiels about his own perspicacity seem to be the only talent. The guy is a wack job.

        Blah Blah Dum is another. He copies and pastes things that he believes says something different to what it actually means and imagines thereby to score some victory over the infidels. In his own fervid imaginings only. He pretends to knowledge he does not possess. He pretends to be an expert in everything. He insults and berates and goes all injured innocence when replied to in the same vein.

        He is a pretender with no worth at all – merely a pointless distraction with an ideological agenda.

        Tomas on the other hand provides some serious discussion of what is the most important topic in climate science – it is worth discussing more.

      • capt. d., yes, a transient climate doesn’t need to preserve RH, only an equilibrium one. We are in a transient climate for now.

      • Well, sorry to hear about the first order feedback not kicking in for ya just yet. That’s in the pipeline right?

        Wait… wouldn’t that kinda imply that some of the transient climate could be due to natural variability being amplified by “other” stuff?

      • The Dust Bowl and previous Arctic melting and snowy Europe also occurred in a transient climate when the forcing change (possibly partially from solar) seemed almost as fast from 1910-1940. Just seems like a pattern we need to get used to this time.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oh for God’s sake – the oceans determine rainfall. Stop making things up as you go.

        http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html

      • Well, I reckon we could just get used to it, but then again, I seem to recall there was something that changed the soil moisture. Plumb slips my mind what that was though.

      • Jim D

        The early 20th century global warming cycle to which you refer resulted in linear warming of 0.53C over the 34-year period 1910 to 1944 (or 0.16C/decade). You indicate that this was mostly from solar.

        Phil Jones has stated that this period is “statistically indistinguishable” from the late 20th century warming that started around 1970, which has been attributed in large part to AGW.

        In between there was a ~30 year “pause” in global warming (slight cooling) despite rapidly increasing human GHG emissions in the post WWII boom period.

        Now we are in a very weak solar cycle 24, and temperature has been falling slightly since 2001, despite unabated human GHG emissions. This is being attributed (Met Office) to “natural variability”.

        I agree with you that this “seems like a pattern we need to get used to this time”.

        For me this means that the next 20 years or so will probably see no warming even if no substantive “climate initiatives” are taken, thereby falsifying the IPCC projection of 0.2C warming per decade from AGW (and, of course, the longer range IPCC projections for 2100).

        Would you agree?

        Max

        .

      • manacker, re 9:09am, I think the solar effect was about half of the 1910-40 warming. Getting used to droughts, etc., yes. You think no rise is also something to get used to rather than the predictable steps at solar maxes, which is where I disagree. The last 3 solar maxes have had very distinct steps, and I expect this again in the next one. Land temperatures have risen 0.3 degrees per decade for three decades according to BEST. This may continue along with the OHC rise and Arctic melt, etc. You would agree with these too, I guess.

      • Jim D

        Arctic melt: agree

        50% solar effect 1910-1944: have seen estimates that are a bit higher, but basically agree

        Droughts: do not agree that there are any formal attribution studies that link AGW to droughts

        OHC rise: Question this – data prior to ARGO very spotty, ARGO shows no warming since 2003 (agree that it is logical that a small bit of ocean warming probably occurred while atmosphere was warming, even if this cannot be measured)

        Future temperature trend (next 2 decades): who knows? Are we in a ~30-year lull or will long-term warming trend re-start soon?

        Have also seen studies that attribute ~20% of the late 20thC warming to solar.

        1910-1944 warming = 0.53C; 50% = 0.265C
        1976-2000 warming = 0.40C, 20% = 0.08C

        Total 20thC solar warming = 0.345C (roughly 50% of observed total)

        Max

      • @Jim D “We are in a transient climate for now.”

        You betcha! Climate always has been and always will be. It only becomes stable when it passes into the past and any analysis of past climate information for the purposes of determining trends is too much of a stretch.

      • Jim D

        If the “continents are getting drier because the SST is not keeping up with the land heating”, then you are right that RH will decrease (rather than remain constant, as assumed by the IPCC models).

        This seems to have been confirmed by M+D 2004, which showed that the observed moisture increase with warming was less than one-fourth of the increase with constant RH.

        But doesn’t this mean that the IPCC water vapor feedback estimate (and thus the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity estimate) is too high?

        Max

      • manacker, as I mention elsewhere the constant-RH assumption works in the long run, but not in a climate where the land is warming so much faster, which is what we have now due to the ocean’s thermal inertia.

      • Jim D

        If you check the NOAA record on tropospheric water vapor content since 1948, you’ll see that “the constant-RH assumption works does not work in the long run.

        Clausius-Clapeyron is a great theory, which works within a simple closed system, but there are too many other variables in our climate system for it to work in lockstep in our climate.

        See M+D 2004 for a better idea of short-term water vapor response (less than 1/4 of the amount if RH were held constant).

        It just ain’t happening out there in the real world, Jim – either short term or long term. Only in the models.

        Max

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oh I will question it Jim D. Tsonis’ model is more of a ‘toy model’ demonstration of concept rather than a full blown physical model. It provides a quantification of what many know intuitively to be so. Life is like a box of chocolates – you never know what you are going to get.

        Tsonis writes about the ENSO, the drying of the Sahel and the demise of the Minoan Civilisation. He has the soul of a poet. But I am sure he knows that it is by no means certain that ENSO will repeat the pattern of the last 100 years.

        I use models all the time. They are fit for specific purposes. One of these for climate models might be probabalistic climate forecasts. We are nowhere near that on an IPCC level – even though it was flagged in the 3AR. Perhaps next time.

        http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.short

      • CH, OK you should check out a toy model by a guy named Hansen in 1981 (Science). It predicted the current warming quite well.

      • capt

        My empirical estimate of climate estimate is also about 0.8 deg C. Don’t change your blog name. I will join you by including 0.8 deg C in my blog name.

      • “The skeptics have now found models that they don’t question. ”

        Wow.
        Where?
        And do they predict 100 years into the future?

      • gbaikie, you have presumably learned to ignore CHs’ postings. Good for you.

      • “gbaikie, you have presumably learned to ignore CHs’ postings. Good for you.”
        Oh, you mean this:

        https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf

        I did look at briefly. And then looked at again.
        It says:
        “Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st
        century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse
        gases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature
        (Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in
        behavior.”

        So it’s assuming there 2 C per century due to CO2.
        Is that what is called skeptic?
        I believe 2 C warming by 2100 is possible.
        But don’t think all the 2 C warming would due to CO2. Just as I don’t think all of the 20th century warming is due to CO2.
        Mainly it seemed about natural variability, involving PDO, etc. Of recently, I thought this was fairly mainstream kind of stuff.

        But in general, it seemed making an attempt at roughly approximating the main elements of climate variability. And a work in progress type thing rather than something definitive- though this is as can be expected considering the rudimentary state of climate science.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        gbaikie

        Ah – but you have to ask yourself why we get these sudden shifts in temperature and ENSO and PDO behaviour at the mid 1940’s, the late 1970’s and 1998/2001? When the forcings all move so slowly and uniformly? Should we not get smooth transitions rather than sudden shifts?

        The answer is that the climate is a complex and dynamic mechanisms with hundreds if not thousands of elements all dynamically changing over time. And that is how a complex and dynamic system behaves. It is stable until pushed into a response and then the response propagates through the system causing large flucuations until the system ultimately settles into a new stable state.

        How very unlike simple notions of cause and effect this is.

        Cheers

      • “gbaikie

        Ah – but you have to ask yourself why we get these sudden shifts in temperature and ENSO and PDO behaviour at the mid 1940′s, the late 1970′s and 1998/2001? When the forcings all move so slowly and uniformly? Should we not get smooth transitions rather than sudden shifts?”

        If I ask myself why we are getting sudden shifts in average global temperature.
        First, I don’t know if can call tenths of degrees as sudden shifts.
        In terms climate on regional level we do get what one could call sudden shifts.
        So very large regions or smaller regions we get very perceptible sudden shifts. And that is common or “normal”.
        In terms global climate one has things like PDO which increasing the chances of certain weather phenomena and/or affecting regional climates- and so thereby have larger effect on global averaged temperature.

        But I believe what you mean small trends in average global temperature, the prolonged nature of things like PDO, again on averaged basis going have significant effect [assuming there isn’t some other large global effecting effect cancelling out the temperature difference. Or the effect has be big enough to escape the noise of fluctuation and other effect[s] which rises above the noise.

        But of course there other things, but do not think one can ignore PDO, NAO, and ENSO.
        Denying they don’t have large effect upon global temperature, means you are simply ignoring climate science.
        But paper in question, it’s about chaos theory- which tends to make my head hurt:)
        Whereas climate science probably must involve chaos theory, I guess my biggest problem has to do with magnitudes involved- at least on global scale.

        “The answer is that the climate is a complex and dynamic mechanisms with hundreds if not thousands of elements all dynamically changing over time. And that is how a complex and dynamic system behaves.”

        Yes.
        But someone else deal with all this stuff. I am happy if I can understand it in terms of the basic main factors involved.

        Which I think would include this:
        ” It is stable until pushed into a response and then the response propagates through the system causing large flucuations until the system ultimately settles into a new stable state. ”

        Which my opinion is another important aspect of climate.
        Though this part about stable state is a bit tricky in terms duration and if slow rise or fall is included in what is called a stable state. Or the result of steep rise or fall and “the landing” is also what one is calling a stable state [entering glacial period and exiting a glacial period]. And during last few million years, obviously, The Stable State has been the glacial periods.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        <This was why I was wondering why you keep quoting Tsonis, who uses GCM results and is clearly a warmist as gbaikie pointed out, and now also McWilliams and Palmer who are far from skeptics too.

        You obviously haven’t seen the graphs that JCH just introduced above. But perhaps if I describe my intellectual evolution. In the late 1980’s I read a paper that changed my life. Two Australian fluvial geomorphologist by the names of Erskine and Warner noticed that central New South Wales streams changed form from high energy braided to low energy meandering. At that stage I was reading everything I could find on limnology and estuarine and coastal dynamics – tracing the movement of water, nutrients and pollutants through surface water, organisms and soils to the ocean. The hydrological cycle was my passion and biogeochemical cycling was the way to protect it, nurture it and restore it.

        Erskine and Warner realised that the only way rivers can change form is if the characteristic flow changes. So they looked at the flood records and found alternating regimes of flooding and drought of about 25 years duration. This sent me on a decades long quest to find the source of these regimes. The PDO wasn’t described until 1996 and I was impressed that the periods of the PDO coincided exactly with these rainfall regimes. But how could something in the north-east Pacific influence Australian rainfall.

        I had read the first assessment report – thought it seemed reasonable enough and didn’t give it a second thought. Except when someone would say that we were now in permanent drought because global warming had changed the nature of ENSO in the late 1970’s. I would think to myself that this had happened in the past and might just happen again. By 2000 the evidence coming out of Australian hydrology linked the PDO with the frequency and intensity of ENSO events. By 2003 it was clear that it had happened – that the Pacific multi-decadal mode had switched again. The ENSO message was mixed but the biological indicators were evidence enough.

        In 2003 I was staring at the PDO graph and the CRUTEM data – and it struck me that the inflection points in temperature were exactly at the times when the PDO changed mode. These Pacific phenomenon were influencing global surface temperature – as we now know all too well. I felt sure that as time went on that these ‘cycles’ would be recognised by the IPCC in 2007. They were not.

        Thus a skeptic was created. I wrote for American Thinker, E&E, Quadrant – I was one of the Inhofe 400. I was a darling of the skeptical world. It didn’t last. In 2008 I discovered I was wrong. These were not cycles. These were climate shifts in a system that is dynamically complex – and therefore exquisitely sensitive to small changes. I became a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom. I tried to convey my new knowledge to my erstwhile skeptic friends – some of the biggest names in the business. I was shunned. I was now shunned, insulted and despised by both sides.

        It matters little – I am a true natural philosopher and I follow my curiosity. I am beholden to no one and owe no loyalties. Why Tsonis, McWilliams and Palmer you ask? Because this is truly a new paradigm. There are no first or second order effects. There are control variables and a system that responds in the ways a complex and dynamic systems behaves. There is no proximate cause and effect. There are tremendous energies cascading through powerful mechanisms.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Should I try that again?

        This was why I was wondering why you keep quoting Tsonis, who uses GCM results and is clearly a warmist as gbaikie pointed out, and now also McWilliams and Palmer who are far from skeptics too.

        You obviously haven’t seen the graphs that JCH just introduced above. But perhaps if I describe my intellectual evolution. In the late 1980′s I read a paper that changed my life. Two Australian fluvial geomorphologist by the names of Erskine and Warner noticed that central New South Wales streams changed form from high energy braided to low energy meandering. At that stage I was reading everything I could find on limnology and estuarine and coastal dynamics – tracing the movement of water, nutrients and pollutants through surface water, organisms and soils to the ocean. The hydrological cycle was my passion and biogeochemical cycling was the way to protect it, nurture it and restore it.

        Erskine and Warner realised that the only way rivers can change form is if the characteristic flow changes. So they looked at the flood records and found alternating regimes of flooding and drought of about 25 years duration. This sent me on a decades long quest to find the source of these regimes. The PDO wasn’t described until 1996 and I was impressed that the periods of the PDO coincided exactly with these rainfall regimes. But how could something in the north-east Pacific influence Australian rainfall.

        I had read the first assessment report – thought it seemed reasonable enough and didn’t give it a second thought. Except when someone would say that we were now in permanent drought because global warming had changed the nature of ENSO in the late 1970′s. I would think to myself that this had happened in the past and might just happen again. By 2000 the evidence coming out of Australian hydrology linked the PDO with the frequency and intensity of ENSO events. By 2003 it was clear that it had happened – that the Pacific multi-decadal mode had switched again. The ENSO message was mixed but the biological indicators were evidence enough.

        In 2003 I was staring at the PDO graph and the CRUTEM data – and it struck me that the inflection points in temperature were exactly at the times when the PDO changed mode. These Pacific phenomenon were influencing global surface temperature – as we now know all too well. I felt sure that as time went on that these ‘cycles’ would be recognised by the IPCC in 2007. They were not.

        Thus a skeptic was created. I wrote for American Thinker, E&E, Quadrant – I was one of the Inhofe 400. I was a darling of the skeptical world. It didn’t last. In 2008 I discovered I was wrong. These were not cycles. These were climate shifts in a system that is dynamically complex – and therefore exquisitely sensitive to small changes. I became a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom. I tried to convey my new knowledge to my erstwhile skeptic friends – some of the biggest names in the business. I was shunned. I was now shunned, insulted and despised by both sides.

        It matters little – I am a true natural philosopher and I follow my curiosity. I am beholden to no one and owe no loyalties. Why Tsonis, McWilliams and Palmer you ask? Because this is truly a new paradigm. There are no first or second order effects. There are control variables and a system that responds in the ways a complex and dynamic systems behaves. There is no proximate cause and effect. There are tremendous energies cascading through powerful mechanisms.

      • This little essay of Chief’s needs to be graded against the Crackpot Index. It is certain to score off the charts.

      • On a par, odd how that center projection curve nearly nails 0.8. Oh well, I guess now I’ll just have to change my sockpuppet add-on.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I don’t really have time to read Tsonis, Tsonis, Tsonis right now. But the graphs did give me a much needed laugh.

      • Thanks JCH.

        Here is my model => http://bit.ly/OsdxJf

      • I wish they tried it with HADCRUT3 instead of GISS. Before mid-20th century, the GISS data does not show much multi-decadal variability.

        Kravtsov and Tsnois, please do you analysis with HADCRUT3.

      • Only maroons play with HadCrappy.

      • JCH

        You mean “maroons” like IPCC?

        Max

      • [This comment got posted in the wrong spot, so I’ll repeat]

        JCH

        You mean “maroons” like IPCC?

        Max

      • [comment vanished upthread; second try:]

        We have HadCRUT4 now. HadCRUT3 is obsolete. One should really try to keep up.

        HadCRUT4 vs GISTEMP on a common 1981 – 2010 baseline for direct comparison.

      • Blah Blah Duh, darn it! HADCRAPPY 3 is obsolete, seems people were making wagers based on HADCRAPPY 3, I wonder if that messed up the betting line?

        By the By, is this the correct way to orient the Martin Mg data?

        I know that OHC is dear to your heart and would hate to offend your sensibilities.

      • Your graph says the Mg BWT reconstructions came from Martin et al. (2008). Could you link to this paper before we continue?

        Thanks

      • It is not a link to their paper, it is a link to their archived data on NOAA. That data has been updated once or twice and used in a few papers. Might be why there is a discrepancy in one of the core designations. On NOAA paleo it is under
        “Atlantic/Pacific Bottom Water Temperature, 331,000 years, Martin et al. 2002″ which was the original reference, but there are a few notes here and there in the Excel download. The CO2 data is also from NOAA Paleo.

        Shame that some of the more interesting cores calibrations are a tad difficult to track down. There is an interesting ocean mound real close to the ACC that seems fairly popular lately.

      • capn

        Right, good. We’ll stick with M02 then.

        When are you going to admit that you plotted the δ18O data from Martin et al. (2002) upside-down but did not realise what you had done because you hadn’t bothered to read the actual paper? Why am I so sure? Because when I read M02 as I checked your work it was instantly obvious what you had done. Impossible to miss if you had read the paper.

        Other things rather jumped out too. Notably that M02 was an exploration of the potential for using benthinc foraminiferal Mg/Ca as a proxy for BWT. The initial results were promising, but not definitive:

        Additional calibration studies are needed to address potential secondary effects on Mg/Ca.

        It is exceedingly unwise to try to build an argument on an experimental and caveated study like this. Wild surmise is the sort of unscientific behaviour typically associated with cranks and crackpots. Obviously you wouldn’t want to be taken for a crank and a crackpot.

        Now, time for honesty and a demonstration of good faith that will at least partially restore my estimation of you. Admit your errors frankly and openly. You will feel better for it, you will *look* better for it, and we can move on.

        1/ Admit that your claim about the age of the permanent Antarctic ice sheet was dead wrong.

        2/ Admit that you plotted the δ18O data from Martin et al. (2002) upside-down but did not realise what you had done because you hadn’t bothered to read the actual paper.

      • Blah Blah Duh, First I did not plot the do18 upside down, I plotted the do18 exactly as it was archived. I did mistake the C. for C degrees, but as I stated, I was looking for divergence timing not absolute magnitudes. So I admitted the mistake, C degree labeling the axis, but it did not impact my comparison of the divergence timing. I know that is difficult for you to wrap your brain around, but I am looking for recurrent patterns in the data, not precision absolute temperatures which would be unrealistic to expect.

        Second, Permanent Antarctic Ice Sheet would mean “PERMANENT” if a large enough section of Antarctic ice separates from the land, it would not be PERMANENTLY fixed to the continent. Separation of large chunks of fixed ice would impact the ACC flow. Changes in ACC flow would impact surface and bottom water temperatures in that region and the THC globally. That was the point of the conversation, the search of archived paleo ocean data. to determine Antarctic ice configuration on global climate.

        Did you not yerself mention that a rather sizable chunk of the not so PERMANENT ice is relatively young?

      • Blah Blah Duh

        That’s right Capn. Continue name calling like a five year old but fail to admit your glaring and credibility-destroying errors.

        But bluff, misdirection and insults are all you’ve got. Your problem going forward is that I know this now.

        And before your tedious convolutions go any further, the permanent Antarctic ice sheet is the EAIS, not the WAIS. Of course the WAIS is highly unstable and sensitive to slight increases in GAT.

      • Now, let’s try again:

        1/ Admit that your claim about the age of the permanent Antarctic ice sheet was dead wrong.

        2/ Admit that you plotted the δ18O data from Martin et al. (2002) upside-down but did not realise what you had done because you hadn’t bothered to read the actual paper.

      • Balh Blah Duh, does this GFY mean anything to you :)

      • Bugger the threading on this blog today. Again:

        The “cool” bias in the methodology is likely not a cool bias, but an indication of differences in the heat flux. The “cool” bias in the methodology is likely not a cool bias, but an indication of differences in the heat flux.

        Read widely on this topic have you?

        You *never learn* do you?

      • Blah Blah Duh, “Read widely on this topic have you?” A bit. 20 something years of measuring temperatures, flows, heat capacities. Nothing serious though.

        Do you actually posses the capability of rational thought? Surface air temperature is based on surface air temperatures. The RSS/UAH is based on an average from the near surface to the mid troposphere and how the filter is adjusted would impact the output. As long as the filtering is consistent, the data is useful.

      • Do you actually posses the capability of rational thought? Surface air temperature is based on surface air temperatures. The RSS/UAH is based on an average from the near surface to the mid troposphere

        You don’t know how the satellite MSU/AMSU data are used to calculate TLT, do you capn? It’s pretty obvious, so be careful what you decide to say next.

      • Blah Blah Duh, you should read up on it then.

        http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

        The weighting functions or filtering are the what I mentioned have to be considered. When I compared the AQUA data which included absolute temperature estimates with various other indications of temperature, Thermosteric sealevel, CO2, solar TSI, it is accurate enough to be useful. There are some obvious drift errors, but for rough estimates it is fine. The Satellite data is really nice because it is purely radiant energy based, gives you a feel for what photons “see”. That is one of the limitations of temperature anomalies. You can forget there is real heat capacity that needs to be considered.

        Both RSS and UAH do pretty well too though there are different weighting and drift adjustments used. RSS tended to drift to a cool bias relative to UAH recently, but there are several layers that can be used to estimate the impact. As long as you don’t fool yourself into being overconfident in the precision. That is where words like “likely” come in handy.

      • Yet another threading failure. Again:

        captn

        The RSS/UAH is based on an average from the near surface to the mid troposphere

        This is wrong. Do you know why it is wrong? You’ve just googled the RSS stuff and haven’t bothered to read it. Something of a habit with you.

        Here’s why you are wrong:

        TLT is contructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU 5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 1 for the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the differences involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results. For more details see Mears et al., 2009b.

        Straight from the source you link but which you obviously have not read.

        You never seem to get anything right, which suggests that you should be treated as a joke. Shall we treat you as a joke?

      • dude. you plotted it upside down.

      • Dude, I plotted the data as it was and posted it as part of a conversation on a blog. I admitted that it was not properly orient for the C degrees labeled on the plot. The BTW still warms before the onset of an interglacial and CO2 rise.

        The Tropical eastern pacific difference would interesting to them not totally anal.

      • captdallas

        Your graph says the Mg BWT reconstructions came from Martin et al. (2008). Could you link to this paper before we continue?

        Thanks

      • BBD

        Yeah.

        Changing data sets is always a bit suspicious, but here’s HadCRUT4 and GISS for the past 12 years (since the new millennium started):

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/offset:-0.287/plot/gistemp/from:2001/offset:-0.363/to:2012.75/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/offset:-0.287/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/offset:-0.363/trend

        Both show no warming.

        Max

      • Changing data sets is always a bit suspicious

        More paranoid conspiracy theorising. You need to stop doing this Max. It looks bad.

        Blatant cherry picking looks bad too. Here’s a more revealing look at the data which shows up the significant effect of the two strong La Niña at the end of the record (2008; 2010 – 11 ‘double-dip’)?

        Comparing HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP we see something interesting. We see that those two strong La Niña at the end of the record have a substantial effect.

        Decadal trend 1995 – 2008

        HadCRUT4 0.18C
        GISTEMP 0.19C

        Decadal trend 1995 – present

        HadCRUT4 0.1C
        GISTEMP 0.1C

        Let’s run that back a bit and see what happens. Here’s HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP from 1975 – 2008 and 1975 – present.

        Decadal trend 1975 – 2008

        HadCRUT4 0.19C
        GISTEMP 0.18C

        Decadal trend 1975 – present

        HadCRUT4 0.17C
        GISTEMP 0.16C

        And there you have it. The two strong La Niña at the end of the record have a substantial effect on the decadal trend.

        We should therefore be very careful how we represent and interpret the recent term GAT data.

      • Last 12 years of Gistemp shows warming.

        That what sevearl months of anemic ENSO neutral will do to people who went long on the 2nd strongest La Nina in the record.

      • David Springer

        JCH | November 19, 2012 at 9:38 am | Reply

        “Last 12 years of Gistemp shows warming.”

        Same graph, using RSS satellite data instead of Gistemp shows substantial cooling.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.76/to:2012.76/trend/plot/rss/from:2000.76/to:2012.76

        Looks like Gistemp has been pencil whipped to show what someone wanted it to show. Use the satellite data whenever practical for the greatest credibility.

      • Looks like RSS needs to rethink.

      • JCH

        Looks like RSS needs to rethink.

        I wish the ‘sceptics’ would apply their ‘scepticism’ a little more vigorously to the reliability of the satellite reconstructions of TLT. What with them being modelled estimates based on a *proxy* for tropospheric T rather than direct measurements of TLT temperature itself.

        Of course *scientists* are asking questions about how reliable the RSS and (closely related) UAH methodologies are, eg Po-Chedley & Fu (2012).

        Cool bias in the methodology would explain a lot.

      • Wood for Trees has stopped updating UAH, but, even with the latest version of UAH to date, I think it would show the same warming over the last 12 years as Gistemp.

        And AMSU channel 5 just completed another La Nina erasing wiggle to the upwards and beyond. Lol, new version time!

      • Blah Blah Duh, “I wish the ‘sceptics’ would apply their ‘scepticism’ a little more vigorously to the reliability of the satellite reconstructions of TLT” Some skeptics have done just that. I have even compare RSS and UAH to steric sea level change and seasonal CO2 fluctuations.

        In fact, as I noted to David Springer above, you have to allow for the difference in air density and remember you are dealing with anomalies not absolute temperatures.

        The “cool” bias in the methodology is likely not a cool bias, but an indication of differences in the heat flux. Consider that the average cloud altitude has decreased, ala IRIS effect which would impact the ERL altitude. There should be a difference between the surface trend and lower troposphere trends.

        Are y’all really scientists?

      • capn, why can’t you see that repeating this doesn’t get you off hook:

        Blah Blah Duh, First I did not plot the do18 upside down, I plotted the do18 exactly as it was archived.

        I know how the data are archived because I replicated your graph. Or rather, I discovered that you had your head up your backside and hadn’t read M02. At the time, I called you a buffoon, which in hindsight was generous.

        I repeat: you plotted the δ18O data from Martin et al. (2002) upside-down but did not realise what you had done because you hadn’t bothered to read the actual paper. Why am I so sure? Because when I read M02 as I checked your work it was instantly obvious what you had done. And impossible to miss if you had read the paper.

        Buffoonery is one thing. Persistent refusal to admit error is another. It swiftly becomes *dishonesty*. Why are you doing this to yourself when all you have to do is admit your errors? We all make mistakes. Although your horrible gaffe over the age of the permanent Antarctic ice sheet cannot be forgotten but there’s no helping that now. The best and only solution there would be to admit that you don’t know what you are talking about and hope for charity from others. Of course if you have been insulting people and calling them silly names then you might get very little, but that’s the risk you run when you make childish insults a mainstay of your commenting technique. As you are now discovering.

      • Blah Blah Duh, Look. When you first mentioned that I double checked. I redownloaded the Martin Excel file off NOAA paleo
        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/martin2002/martin2002.xls

        I check the excel against the text version. That is when I saw the (C. wuellerstorfi) which my spreadsheet column width cut down to (C. >

        The text list, “Tropical Atlantic core M16772″ and the Excel data page has M16722 for the Atlantic Core.

        I did not invert that do18. I did have another chart where I inverted the mg and that chart specifically stated that it was inverted.

        The first few data points for that core do18 are:

        Age Depth Mg/Ca T d18O
        0.58 2 1.044 2.2 2.48
        1.45 5 1.055 1.96 2.4
        2.9 10 1.235 3.4 2.44
        4.36 15 1.172 2.92 2.5
        5.81 20 1.171 2.91 2.56
        7.26 25 1.172 2.92 2.57
        8.71 30 1.259 3.57 2.62
        10.57 35 1.176 2.95 2.98

        That is the way the data is archived.

        Using the data “as is” even with the M16722, I did that. I did not do anything to intentionally deceive, not my style.

        The reason I started on the southern hemisphere and ocean paleo data is because of this:

        And this:

        See I am curious as to why that is like that.

        You are only interesting in being a pest and you are good at it.

      • capn

        Do stop lying. It is hopeless and only makes it worse.

        For the record (which I will be revisiting, from time to time) you have refused to :

        1/ Admit that your claim about the age of the permanent Antarctic ice sheet was dead wrong.

        2/ Admit that you plotted the δ18O data from Martin et al. (2002) upside-down but did not realise what you had done because you hadn’t bothered to read the actual paper.

        In doing so, repeatedly and doggedly, you have revealed yourself to be dishonest as well as a careless crank.

      • Yet again BBD repeatedly and doggedly dishonestly claiming dishonesty on the part of others. Makes the likes of lolwot look like honest brokers.

      • For the final time, your latest childish attempt to talk your way out of acknowledging that you are incompetent does not work.

        You *still* don’t seem to understand that I noticed your mistakes because Martin presents the δ18O curve in the *correct* orientation.

        How the data are archived is irrelevant. The correct orientation is obvious to anyone who has seen δ18O proxy/temperature curves before.

        How could you have made such an obvious, glaring, elementary mistake? And then to try and build one of your crank theories on it?

        As I said, you are a joke. And everybody reading this knows it.

      • Blah Blah Duh, I gave you the link, I gave you the start of the data.

        here is a plot of everything on that page of the Excel download.

        Age Kyr Depth cm. Mg/Ca (C. wuellerstorfi, mmol/mol) Mg-derived Temperature (C. wuellerstorfi, degrees C) delta O-18 (C. wuellerstorfi)

        Those are the headings on the Excel spreadsheet, there is no degrees C following the do-18 is there? I have no clue where you got your data, but this is where I got mine.

        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/martin2002/martin2002.xls

        GFY

      • Capn

        It’s mind-boggling. You still don’t understand that you revealed the true depth of your ignorance by *not realising* that the δ18O *as archived* was inverted.

        You don’t know how δ18O should correlate with T or you would have spotted this *instantly*.

        And I caught you out. Now, the real stupidity is for you to relentlessly accuse *me* of ignorance.

        Until you cease, I will relentlessly remind everyone here that you are a fraudulent buffoon who believes that there was no permanent Antarctic ice sheet more than 800ka and who doesn’t know how δ18O correlates with T.

        Until you get your thick head around this, you are going to suffer for it.

        My advice: learn your lesson and alter your behaviour toward me, starting immediately.

      • BBD,

        There is a difference between a mistake and “FRAUD”. I do make mistakes. I don’t intentionally try to defraud people. Not my style.

        I consider you *ignorant* because you have no imagination and select nits to pick instead of allowing curiosity to lead you to discovery. The anomalies, those weird little things that don’t fit are the interesting parts of this complex puzzle. But in your unimaginative milquetoast world, they are just noise, much like you.

        There is evidence of a strong precession signal in the southern oceans, there is a 4.3 ka recurrent pattern associated with the precession cycle signal, the deep oceans have warmed during glacial periods out of phase with the surface. All of those are interesting anomalies. You are not interested in discovery so GFY

      • capn

        “BBD” – that’s better. Let’s keep it that way from now on.

        There is a difference between a mistake and “FRAUD”

        Indeed there is. When you refuse to admit an error upon which you based an entire argument despite being confronted with unequivocal evidence of that error you go from mistaken to fraudulent.

        Let’s go back to where it all began.

        Here’s the graph you f*cked up.

        Here is the *crank theory* derived directly from your accidental use of an upside-down δ18O curve which leads you to believe that there is an inverse relationship between bottom water temperature and CO2:

        That is the Bottom water temperatures versus EPICA CO2, notice how there is also an inverse relationship between bottom water temperature and CO2.

        The “Bottom” in those cores is 3200m and 3900m which is just above the Abysmal [sic; the irony is precious] zone. So it would appear that OHC drops rapidly during the change from glacial to interglacial and then slowly rises during the interglacial [sic: more sloppiness; he means ‘glacial’] until it drops like a brick at the entry into the next interglacial.

        Kinda interesting.

        Kinda hilariously wrong. BWT and CO2 of course are broadly correlated across the entire record.

        And contrary to your dishonest wriggling upthread, your crank theory depends on your mistake. There’s not getting out of this Capn. You are well and truly scuppered and you know it.

        Your lifeboat is the truth: admit your errors and apologise for the dishonesty. Also stop insulting my intelligence literally and metaphorically in every single comment you make and we’ll let this drop, for now.

        What happens next is up to you.

        You are not interested in discovery so GFY.

        Do you wish to continue?

      • BBD, “your crank theory depends on your mistake.” It does not and that is the point idiot. You can’t get past that can you? You are married to a theory and don’t care to look for yourself. It is the timing of the changes that differ and that is not falsified.

        BTW, it is not my crank theory, I just observed an anomaly and found that others had discovered the same before me. Stott for example, which you say is wrong because his work doesn’t agree with yours. Lawrence also has noted the same thing. Tuggweilder’s ACC work also meshes with more dominate Southern Hemisphere control over the THC. Tsonis, Douglas etc. etc. etc. The world is passing you by Blah Blah Duh. You are a speed bump in the path of progress.

      • For goodness sake capn. Just stop.

        You claimed an inverse relationship between BWT and CO2. You did so because you had the δ18O curve upside-down. Here – again – is the evidence in your own words:

        That is the Bottom water temperatures versus EPICA CO2, notice how there is also an inverse relationship between bottom water temperature and CO2.

        The “Bottom” in those cores is 3200m and 3900m which is just above the Abysmal [sic; the irony is precious] zone. So it would appear that OHC drops rapidly during the change from glacial to interglacial and then slowly rises during the interglacial [sic] until it drops like a brick at the entry into the next interglacial.

        Kinda interesting.

        How can you have the gall to *persist in lying* about this?

        The world is passing you by Blah Blah Duh. You are a speed bump in the path of progress.

        I am a speed bump in the path of lying cranks like you.

      • Cappy Dick lacks any kind of filter on the “analysis” he does. It is simply numerology and fun with numbers, more suitable for the comics page than serious discussion.

      • Yes, these systematic lies saying that others are lying, does seem to be BBD’s central characteristic or “trick”.

      • BBD says they are lying. I agree and go a step further and assert that they are also crackpots.

        This is not a stretch, as crackpots infiltrate every social media that exists. They get attracted by any talk of uncertainty and feel that this gives them the chance to make stuff up.

      • WHT

        I’ve come across a few poisonous loons in the climate ‘debate’ but CH is in a class of his own.

      • BBD | I’ve come across a few poisonous loons in the climate ‘debate’ but CH is in a class of his own.

        Did someone mention a chutzpah award ?

      • David – Not necessarily pencil whipped. The relationship between GISS surface and the UAH/RSS lower troposphere at about 600mb changes with uptake or loss depending on region. That difference is like a crude Watt meter. Since there is about a 17% difference in air density, the RSS/UAH tends to amplify the relative imbalance.

      • JCH and David

        “Gistemp shows warming” [last 12 years].

        Huh?

        Not really.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001

        And it shows cooling last 11 years:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002

        Max

      • Indeed. And not only was it the second strongest La Nina on record (in terms of SST’s and duration) it was also saw the warmest tropospheric temperatures for any La Nina period. But Bob Tisdale already has it figured out…it was residual heat from the 1998 El Nino! That’s what psychotropic Tisdale cherries will do!

      • Reposted from below:

        Indeed. And not only was it the second strongest La Nina on record (in terms of SST’s and duration) it was also saw the warmest tropospheric temperatures for any La Nina period. But Bob Tisdale already has it figured out…it was residual heat from the 1998 El Nino! That’s what psychotropic Tisdale cherries will do!

      • David Springer

        RSS lower troposphere global mean (full record 1979-2013

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/trend/detrend:0.45

        Linear trend = 0.13C/decade

        Same thing ending in 2008

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/trend/detrend:0.46

        Linear trend = 0.16C/decade

        The difference using the most dependable measure of global average temperature we have is quite a bit larger than you want to admit.

        The other bit of intellectual dishonesty is you’d like us to discount the La Nina’s responsible for the decline. To be fair we should then discount El Nino as well. Take the 1998 El Nino out of the record and there’s precious little warming left in the satellite record.

        You stink of fear and your protests are no more than whistling past the graveyard of failed global warming hypotheses.

      • David Springer

        This is a reply to BBD | November 19, 2012 at 9:25 am | Reply

        Threading is screwed up. Again. So it didn’t post where it belonged.

        RSS lower troposphere global mean (full record 1979-2013

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/trend/detrend:0.45

        Linear trend = 0.13C/decade

        Same thing ending in 2008

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2008/trend/detrend:0.46

        Linear trend = 0.16C/decade

        The difference using the most dependable measure of global average temperature we have is quite a bit larger than you want to admit.

        The other bit of intellectual dishonesty is you’d like us to discount the La Nina’s responsible for the decline. To be fair we should then discount El Nino as well. Take the 1998 El Nino out of the record and there’s precious little warming left in the satellite record.

        You stink of fear and your protests are no more than whistling past the graveyard of failed global warming hypotheses.

      • David Springer

        Take the 1998 El Nino out of the record and there’s precious little warming left in the satellite record.

        You stink of fear and your protests are no more than whistling past the graveyard of failed global warming hypotheses.

        The stink is of old, dead arguments that won’t lie down to rot.

        This animation of data from Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) perfectly demonstrates how wrong you are.

      • David Springer

        “Take the 1998 El Nino out of the record and there’s precious little warming left in the satellite record.”

        Actually the NCDC gives us the input data to roughly estimate the total impact of all El Ninos on the late 20thC warming (1976-2000).

        http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10elnino.html

        This figures out to be roughly 40% of the warming over that period.

        Max

      • David Springer

        The data I just cited shows us that the top four of the top ten El Niño events of the 20th century occurred after 1980. And, as I wrote earlier, the figures show that roughly 40% of the total late 20thC warming (after 1975) can be attributed to these El Niño events.

        If you carry the data series back to 1950 and add in the El Niño events of 1959 and 1966, you end up with 35% of the warming since 1950 caused by El Niño events according to NOAA data.

        Based on several studies, “solar” forcing appears to be around 20% after 1950.

        This leaves 45% for all “other factors”, including human GHGs.

        Doesn’t sound to me like ”Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

        Max

      • BBD

        No need to get all excited, BBD.

        Both GISS and HadCRUT4 confirm that there has been no warming this century (in fact HadCRUT4 shows slight cooling of around 0.025C per decade).

        Ex post facto changes to historical records are strange to me, and we’ve seen this happen from time to time with both HadCRUT and GISS.

        When these changes consistently end up making recent warming look larger (as they have), they raise suspicion in the “rational skeptic” that the “keepers of the records” may not be 100% objective and unbiased.

        And when the same “keepers of the records” are also issuing periodic statements forecasting rapid warming from AGW (IOW they “believe” that significant AGW is occurring) one wonders whether or not they might be “fudging” the data to make their predictions come true.

        And when the “keepers of the records” withhold data from FOIA requests, or even destroy it (as Jones did) one gets even more suspicious that they have something to hide.

        This has nothing to do with a “conspiracy theory”, it’s simply a basic loss of trust in the scientific objectivity of the “keepers of the records”.

        Understand?

        Max

        PS Let’s not go over the discussion we’ve already had with Mosher – no one is saying that the individual weather stations are deliberately reporting high values (although the stations themselves may have a warming bias due to AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots or runways, etc., as studies have shown).

      • manacker

        And when the “keepers of the records” withhold data from FOIA requests, or even destroy it (as Jones did) one gets even more suspicious that they have something to hide.

        This has nothing to do with a “conspiracy theory”

        Don’t be absurd. Once again, what you propose is *classic* conspiracy theory. You need to stop doing this or you will be written off as a paranoid loon. Don’t say you haven’t been warned – repeatedly now.

      • Manacker

        The more I look the worse it gets. Everything you write reeks of conspiracy theory:

        When these changes consistently end up making recent warming look larger (as they have), they raise suspicion in the “rational skeptic” that the “keepers of the records” may not be 100% objective and unbiased.

        Pure paranoid conspiracy theorising. Pass the tinfoil.

      • Max > When these changes consistently end up making recent warming look larger (as they have), they raise suspicion in the “rational skeptic” that the “keepers of the records” may not be 100% objective and unbiased.

        BBD > Pure paranoid conspiracy theorising. Pass the tinfoil.

        To the comically naive, any suggestion of any wrongdoing is a “conspiracy”.

        Wrongdoing never happens, so of course climate scientists never would hide or fiddle data. And the fact that all data “corrections” invariably show AGW to be worse than previously thought, is pure coincidence. And will continue to be coincidence.

      • Tomas Milanovic

        capt. d., yes, a transient climate doesn’t need to preserve RH, only an equilibrium one. We are in a transient climate for now.

        This comment is actually interesting because it concentrates most misconceptions in one sentence .
        It implies and it is actually highly probable that the author really thinks that we are in a transient climate now while we were not in a transient climate before.

        In reality the Earth has been in a transient climate for 4 billions of years and it is not more so “now” than at any other point of the past.
        The system is a paradigmatic example of a forever transient system.
        Chief is perfectly right to try to educate people like the author of the quote by reminding them (f.ex Palmer) that the only way to predict this kind of out of equilibrium, non linear chaotic system is to try to establish equations providing future (hopefully invariant) probability distributions of states.

        But experience showed me that it is (almost) always a waste of time for anybody who had not studied in depth non linear dynamics and/or fluid dynamics and Navier Stokes.
        It reminds me of people who still deny that QM is a fundamentally probabilistic theory 80 years after it has been proven that dynamical variables simply have no sharply defined value and that only probabilities can be predicted.

        QM is btw a good analogy to describe what Chief is trying to say.
        We are lucky that QM is linear and so the Schrödinger equation is exactly what we need – an equation giving explicitely the probability distributions in time and space.
        Unfortunately fluid dynamics is not so generous and is non linear leading to chaotic states. So we have no explicit equivalent of the Schrödinger equation that would yield the probability distributions. That’s why we have only crude numerical methods (e.g running simulations on too low and non converged resolutions) which try to reconstruct the probability distributions in numerical “experiments”.

        Tsonis is of course no panacea but he also takes the chaotic and transient property of the system seriously and tries to construct a purely empirical model by making interact “indexes” in a non linear way. But of course even in this very simple model there is no way that a small variation of any parameter must lead to a small variation of another parameter neither that the system is in any kind of “equilibrium”.

        Perhaps a last point to answer those who ask what happens in a chaotic system when a parameter (dynamical, topological, boundary) changes.
        Well it always changes the attractor.
        An attractor is a subset of the space of dynamical states (phase space).
        In the case we are discussing here e.g climate/weather, the attractor is a set of climate fields like T(x,t), P(x,t) etc (think Fourrier ortogonal basis) and it is THIS set of functions that changes.

        So the system begins to wander along a different attractor than the one it was wandering before the change
        How different?
        Well the answer on this question is all the non linear dynamics is about.
        Sometimes the attractors are very similar and “near” (for a measure defined for the phase space). There is little change and it would look like a pseudo equilibrium.
        But sometimes, and this is what Chief means when he is talking about catastrophes in René Thom sense, the “new” attractor is radically different both in shape and distance from the “old” one.

        And unless one perfectly understands the dynamics of the transient system, it is impossible to predict whether we are in the former or the latter case.
        The climate science is in infancy in that respect and it should be clear for everybody that naive equilibrium linear models don’t even begin to give a hint of answer.

      • Tomas, kinda sums up the confusion nicely doesn’t it.

      • BBD – for some reason, you have to use 2012.76 to get the last month of Gistemp. And it looks so much nicer given how freakin’ hot it was.

      • JCH

        Yes – there’s a problem with the final data point which was why I truncated GISTEMP. Here’s the whole thing – see what I mean? I think the sign is wrong on the final value.

      • Yes, and you and Girma. In an interview even the nobel-prize winner of 2020, Tsonis Tsonis Tsonis, used it.

      • BBD | November 18, 2012 at 8:16 pm
        Before it gets lost in space, here’s the context from S&T09:

        …. warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted ….

        Does that count as a prediction of (greater) warming ?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The only problem we have here is that you are a stupid little space cadet with no inclination to do what I suggested and actually learn something about a threshold concept called complex systems theory.

        Let me quote from the 2007 study – A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts.

        ‘We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behaviour. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behaviour in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.’

        They used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.

        The analysis used historical ocean and atmospheric indices to identify ‘synchronised chaos’ in the last century. Synchronised chaos is a property of network nodes in complex and dynamic systems. These are not just words but they are concepts in theoretical physics. It is ‘slowing down’ and ‘noisy bifurcation’ – and these are terms that have meaning only in the context of complex systems theory. As I have said time and time again – you cannot understand Tsonis without knowing something about complex systems theory.

        However, this analysis cannot be used to predict anything. It is an analysis that is focussed entirely on the past. It identifies periods where climate transitioned to a different state – and subsequently occupied a different volume in the bifurcated phase space for a few decades. It can’t be used to identify future transitions because that would rely on data that is not yet available – the indices of oceans and atmosphere that they used to construct the network analysis. It cannot reasonably be said that there is any basis for predicting anything at all – or perhaps it can be said that anything at all is possible – from this analysis.

        What I keep saying is that it may well be warmer because these climate shifts – due in a decade or three – are by nature unpredictable. Nothing is certain I keep quoting S&P12 as saying, These shifts are unpredictable I quote the NAS committee on abrupt climate change as saying. Sensitive dependence is a humbling property of chaotic dynamical systems that raises problems of just what questions are theoretically answerable – I quote James McWilliams as saying.

        Yet you keep pestering me with S&T09 ‘predicting’ that ‘it may well’ be warmer after the next abrupt and nonlinear shift in climate. It may well be cooler. We may drop off the edge of the climate cliff and see temperatures plunge 10’s of degrees in places with runaway ice and snow feedbacks in as little as a decade. I do not predict anything beyond the current cool mode – and S&T cannot predict anything from their methodology. I doubt very much that they would call ‘it may well be warmer’ a prediction – and if they did I would have to call them on it.

        So what we have is seemingly a scientific illiterate – you – trying to make ideological points out of something you have absolutely no inkling about and moreover refuse to learn. Is that correct?

      • The only problem we have here is that you are a stupid little space cadet with no inclination to do what I suggested and actually learn something about a threshold concept called complex systems theory.

        No, the problem here is that you are a serial misrpresenter who got caught lying about the S&T paper.

        Someone broke the thread again.

        Don’t be ridiculous. Despite your *desperate* evasion tactic of leaping to an entirely new master thread to get rid of the context, it will now follow you around everywhere. I will make sure of that.

        Alternatively, you can pass a simple integrity test. Click here to return to the correct thread and its repeated demonstration of your appalling dishonesty and bad faith.

        Shall I see you there? I wonder.

      • hehe good one willard. accurate and clever.
        maybe we should do one for Mike. Mr I Know Everything

  59. David Springer

    Steven Mosher | November 17, 2012 at 6:45 pm |

    “2. You can do a global average using other un-adjusted data.
    Outside of GHCN and CRU there are over 30,000 stations.
    That is, there are roughly 36000 stations, if you remove
    GHCN and CRU from that you are left with roughly 30K stations
    of unadjusted data.”

    That’s a bald faced lie. We can simply remove the adjustments from the 6000 sanctioned stations and warming disappears.

    Let’s not forget that all the warming in the instrument record is created when the raw station data is homogenized and adjusted for time of observation bias. THERE IS NO WARMING WITHOUT THOSE ADJUSTMENTS.

    • Wrong. Raw GHCN, without adjustments, shows the warming too

      So does the satellite record.

      So do the oceans.

      You “skeptics” are hopeless

    • Also you are DENYING global warming.

      You aren’t just questioning whether it’s caused by man. You are DENYING Global Warming (GW) itself has happened.

      Lets not forget that next time you or one of your ilk claim the term “global warming skeptic” is a strawman because no-one denies the world has warmed.

    • Thanks, David, for speaking the truth bluntly.

      Truth will again destroy deceit, and world tyranny will end.

      We have much to be be grateful for this Thanksgiving !

      • Oliver,

        If you are looking for David Springer to destroy deceit, then you might as well look to a bank robber to put money in your account.

    • David Springer

      Nope, sorry LOLTWAT.

      Straight from the horse’s mouth.

      Or maybe it’s the other end of the horse. Dunno. All I know is the GSHCN network raw data doesn’t have any warming trend. The warming is a result of SHAP and TOBS adjustments. NOAA admits it they just don’t advertise it.

      Mosher admits it too. He, unlike you, is smart enough (barely) to know he has to defend the SHAP and TOBS adjustments not deny the existence of them or what they do to the raw data.

  60. See:

    One Step to Recovery After Nine Steps from Freedom to Tyranny http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1802

    A 2012 Thanksgiving Message of Omnipotent Hope for A World Troubled by Sixty-Seven Years of Official Deceit and Deception

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-180

    (in progress)

  61. This may be a coincidence due to Sunday or something but yesterday I posted the following off topic comment on CD and since then no comment has been classed as off topic:

    “Most of the supposedly off topic comments are very much on topic and there should be a separate URL link to them as putting them after the approved comments makes them inaccessible. Some of these censored comments make the point that none of the three panelists is a skeptic. Others question the framing of the topic as biased. Many present well known skeptical scientific arguments that the panelists do not mention. As it is CD is simply not properly representing skepticism as the mandate requires. If this pattern continues CD will be a failure, merely presenting the internal range of AGW opinion. Skepticism is different.”

    • You mean they want denial, not skepticism.

      It’s off topic because it has nothing to do with Arctic Sea Ice.

      • No, lolwot, they are desperate to advance world tyranny.

        They will fail. The conclusion was recorded before the debate started:

        “Truth is victorious, Never untruth !”

        http://www.omatumr.com/three_truths.pdf

      • lolwot you have missed my point as usual, which is that they seemed to stop declaring on topic comments as off topic after I pointed out that is what they were doing. But time will tell.

        As an aside I did my doctoral dissertation on Kuhn’s observation that people with different basic views cannot understand one another. The climate debate is a grand case in point.

      • Heh. Reminds me of Peter Lang’s speculation about how Climate Etc. was shut down after he posted his comment.

    • I do want to point out that Dr. Curry is indeed a skeptic in the broad sense. She has taken a lot of heat for this and I admire her courage. My point to CD is that she is not however representative of skepticism. Anyone who thinks that it is likely that human activity may have caused up to 70% of the arctic ice phenomenon is extremely moderate as far as skepticism is concerned. The mid point of skepticism is probably that the arctic ice retreat is natural.

      As I understand it CD is a political exercise responding to a parliamentary mandate to engage the range of skeptical views. There is a common political trick to engage the most moderate person one can find and call it dialog with the opposition. That is what I fear here.

  62. I notice Bob Tisdale has recently advanced various claims about SST in Sandy’s storm track.

    Unfortunately for his tests he assumes Sandy to be a point sized storm rather than the behemoth it was, and so doesn’t consider vast amounts ocean which the bulk of Sandy’s extent was over: amounts of ocean that exhibited record high SST levels.

    • Bob Tisdale seems like a nice enough person and pretty smart too, but is so hopelessly off base with whole “ENSO causes global warming” meme. Reminds me a bit of Chief Hydrologist…

      • There is a big difference between “causes” and has a greater than estimated impact on.

        That is one of the problems with “sensitivity”.. The oceans are more sensitive to SW and have a different response time than the atmosphere which is more sensitive to long wave. So if a “skeptic” attempts to discuss the subtle differences in order to narrow the range of uncertainty the Ad Homs start to fly.

        Then you guys have other goofy definitions. ENSO is a rather new discovery and defined as an index or oscillation with no trend based on the definition. A general Pacific to Atlantic internal imbalance or NH to SH imbalance can persist for centuries due to the slow mixing rate of the THC at different depths. A change in the average surface wind velocity over the Antarctic Convergence of +/- 20% can change the current feeding the THC by 10 to 20 Sverdrup with a delayed NH impact of 60 to 150 years. A shift in the NH equivalent convergence region changes the rate of NH SSW events, also a rather new discovery.

        The interplay of the various oscillations or pseudo-cyclic events are rather complex and likely far from being isolated, but the Alarmists discussion invariably returns to the simplistic outdated meme with the occasional “surprise!” How did that happen? Nothing to see here folks. As long as we only use data up to 1995, nothing happened :)

  63. Lauri Heimonen

    Judit Curry

    ”After the election, President Obama is now talking about climate change. He isn’t proposing any specific policies, but wants to have a ‘conversation.’ Huffington Post has an article on this”

    I appreciate the kind of conversation, the objective of which is to create a working solution for the climate problems. In my opinion, we have already much enough data of the factors possibly having effect on the recent warming. Now it is time to create a synthetis to reach a well enough understandable and working solution for the decisionmakers. The point is that we will be able to find a way simple enough to understand the most essential basis for the measures needed. In my synthesis the influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is so minimal that the cutting of CO2 emissions – already realized or being planned – is not any working solution.

    Curryja: http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-268378 :

    ”The point is that there are BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors at play. The question is how much can be attributed to anthropogenic. My point is that it is unlikely to be 0 or 20%, and also unlikely to be 80 or 100%. Somewhere between 30 and 70% is where I think it lies, but I have left plenty of room in my estimate (with the ‘likely’ confidence level) to be wrong.”

    The point of mine is between 0 and 5%.

    Synthesis to reach a working solution on the recent climate problems – the only one available

    Summary

    As I see, the principal objective of the discussions in this forum ‘Climate etc.’ is to find whether the already realized and further measures being planned to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions are properly proved or not. According to my synthesis on the basis of data available these measures do not be any working solution. The anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not dominate the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere – and even the total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere does not control the warming of climate. Thus man is not able to control the global warming. The only working solution is to learn a proper adaptation to natural events of climate. More in detail one can read for instance in the comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 .

    Lack of crossdisciplinary approach

    The research and development work experienced by me to solve multidiscplinary problems of metallurgical processes is analogous to the investications needed to find a working solution for the recent problem of climate change. During recent decades this analogy has made me become interested in climate change, too.

    As to the investigations of problems on climate change there seems to be lack of due crossdisciplinary approach needed to find a working solution. When you as a scientist are trying to solve any multidisciplinary problem like climate change, in addition to the speciality of your own, you have to understand what kind of other specialities available you need. And that you don’t know to do, if your expertise is interdisciplinarily limited. That is why there are difficulties between research people to understand each other. One have to learn that any theory or model may be only a ‘tool’ to solve a certain problem in reality. A crossdisciplinary approach means that you have to learn to know the problem in reality well enough, before you can apply theories and models to the reality. Otherwise any result, as incidental, can not be reliable enough.

    Present situation

    Until now the result of these discussions and of the other data available is that there seems to be no generally acceptable working solution to control the global warming. Already in Rio Conference 1992 was expressed a certain uncertainty on the antropogenic cause of recent warming: ” . . . lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” According to JC’s ‘Climate model discussion thread’ nowadays the uncertainty is deepening: ”The manner in which climate models have been tuned makes them of dubious use in 20th century attribution studies.”

    Until now the climate models adopted by IPCC show only what kind of assumed parameters would be needed to get a certain kind of probability for the recent warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly human CO2 emissions. Among these assumed parameters one of the most unreliable one is the increase of anthropogenic share of CO2 content in atmosphere during the period of indusrialization. Evidently by using inverse calculations (AR4 9.2) – without any evidence in reality – all of this CO2 increase is incorrectly believed to be anthropogenic.

    Adaptation for climate events is the only working solution available

    As to prevent effects of harmful climate events, in general, there seems to be only one clearly working way, and it is how to adapt ourselves to natural changes of climate. There are findings in reality according to which warming dominates the increase of CO2 in atmosphere, and not vice versa. The only interpretation of that is: 1) nowadays any increase of CO2 in atmosphere does not dominate the rise of climate temperature; 2) the anthropogenic CO2 emissions can not even control the total increase of CO2 in atmosphere; and 3) the tempereture is controlled by natural factors.

    Why the global CO2 content in atmosphere is changing

    According to natural laws, the CO2 content in atmosphere is controlled together by both all the CO2 sources and all the CO2 sinks. A continuous striving after dynamic balance makes any change in these sources or sinks influence the content of CO2 in atmosphere, too. A share of single CO2 emission in the total content of CO2 in atmosphere is in proportion of its emission to the total CO2 emissions. Nowadays, when the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4 % of total CO2 emissions, the manmade CO2 emissions control only 4% of the about 395 ppm CO2 content. Thus the present anthropogenic share of CO2 in atmosphere is only about 16 ppm at the most, whereas IPCC assumes – without any evidence in reality – that all the increase of CO2 in atmosphere during the industrialized period of time is anthropogenic, which makes a little over 100 ppm instead of 16 ppm. That anthropogenic share of 4 % in the total CO2 emissions makes even the anthropogenic share in the yearly recent increase of about 2 ppm CO2 be only 0.08 ppm CO2. This anthropogenic share is so low that one has not been able to detect it in reality.

    On the basis of the rise of global sea surface temperature Endersbee claims: ”Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide”. Concerning the mechanism, in the comment above I have stated my argued view, according to which the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been dominated by the rising of sea surface temperature on upper latitudes where the sea surface acts as CO2 sink. On these as CO2 sinks acting sea surface areas the rising sea surface temperature makes rise the partial pressure of CO2 dissolved in surface water. As a result of that CO2 absorption from the atmosphere to the sea surface decreases, which makes CO2 content in the atmosphere rise. This means that the share of CO2 remaining in atmosphere from total CO2 emissions is increasing.

    According to Lance Endersbee, the global sea surface temperature has dominated the increase of CO2 content in atmomosphere during the recent three decades. As I have interpreted the sea surface temperature has dominated the changes of CO2 content in atmosphere during all the 20th century. The analogy seems to reach as far as into the Cretaceous, behind 100 million years. Then CO2 content in atmosphere was about four times the present content, which can be explained by the global sea surface temperature, too.

    • Why the global CO2 content in atmosphere is changing

      According to natural laws, the CO2 content in atmosphere is controlled together by both all the CO2 sources and all the CO2 sinks. A continuous striving after dynamic balance makes any change in these sources or sinks influence the content of CO2 in atmosphere, too. A share of single CO2 emission in the total content of CO2 in atmosphere is in proportion of its emission to the total CO2 emissions. Nowadays, when the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4 % of total CO2 emissions, the manmade CO2 emissions control only 4% of the about 395 ppm CO2 content. Thus the present anthropogenic share of CO2 in atmosphere is only about 16 ppm at the most, whereas IPCC assumes – without any evidence in reality – that all the increase of CO2 in atmosphere during the industrialized period of time is anthropogenic, which makes a little over 100 ppm instead of 16 ppm. That anthropogenic share of 4 % in the total CO2 emissions makes even the anthropogenic share in the yearly recent increase of about 2 ppm CO2 be only 0.08 ppm CO2. This anthropogenic share is so low that one has not been able to detect it in reality.

      On the basis of the rise of global sea surface temperature Endersbee claims: ”Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide”. Concerning the mechanism, in the comment above I have stated my argued view, according to which the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been dominated by the rising of sea surface temperature on upper latitudes where the sea surface acts as CO2 sink. On these as CO2 sinks acting sea surface areas the rising sea surface temperature makes rise the partial pressure of CO2 dissolved in surface water. As a result of that CO2 absorption from the atmosphere to the sea surface decreases, which makes CO2 content in the atmosphere rise. This means that the share of CO2 remaining in atmosphere from total CO2 emissions is increasing.

      According to Lance Endersbee, the global sea surface temperature has dominated the increase of CO2 content in atmomosphere during the recent three decades. As I have interpreted the sea surface temperature has dominated the changes of CO2 content in atmosphere during all the 20th century. The analogy seems to reach as far as into the Cretaceous, behind 100 million years. Then CO2 content in atmosphere was about four times the present content, which can be explained by the global sea surface temperature, too.

      Lauri

      “A picture is worth thousand words” is very pertinent here => http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.3/compress:12/derivative/normalise

      • Lauri

        If our interpretation above is correct, we should agree with the late Hal’s characterisation of CAGW:

        It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

      • Girma asks:

        “Why the global CO2 content in atmosphere is changing”?

        ____
        Because humans are burning fossil fuels at an ever accelerating rate. The oceans have absorbed as much as they can (considering they are warming as well), but we now seem to be exhausting about 2 ppm or so more CO2 each year than the Earth can naturally sequester.

      • R Gates

        Me again.

        You said

        “The oceans have absorbed as much as they can (considering they are warming as well), but we now seem to be exhausting about 2 ppm or so more CO2 each year”

        Warming oceans will expel co2 and there is your increase in co2. You warmists tell us on the one hand that the oceans are warming and on the other that mankind is responsible for 100% of the co2 increase.

        A logical impossibility. If the oceans are warming then they will be expelling co2 and their contribution to atmospheric co2 will dwarf that of mankind’s.

        Cheer up, the world is due to end in just over a month apparently. Thus making all discussion about co2 irrelevant.

      • J Martin, you can estimate that effect from the last ice age recovery (and chemical equilibrium ideas) and it is 10-15 ppm CO2 added per degree of ocean warming.

      • Hockey stick science.

      • Looks like you can’t read graphs. That’s the background atmospheric CO2 on the y-axis. Where’s the temperature? Furthermore, the graph is pseudo-science (splicing the air bubble concentrations from ice cores with the direct atmospheric measurements).

      • lolwot

        Look at the curve you just posted.

        It does not show temperature

        How can you use it to claim the MWP wasn’t warmer than today?

        Answer: You can’t

        Get your data straight if you are going to debate with intelligent people, otherwise they will assume you are simply an ignorant troll.

        Max

      • Don’t you know that CO2 is a proxy for temperature?

        CO2 rise is caused by temperature rises. Scroll up and see Girma and Lauri Heimonen’s posts for the proof of this. Also see the work of Murry Salby.

        Don’t deny the science or you might be thought of as a troll!

        So here’s that well established temperature proxy graph again showing current temperatures are far higher than the Medieval “Warm” Period.

      • J. Martin,

        Tell me you are not really a follower of Salby! I had thought better of you. But since you are, I would counter with some actual science, and direct you here:

        http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

        and maybe here:

        http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

        Really, pull yourself away from the psychotropic and mind-numbing material you might come across in the blogosphere and get to some real science.

      • lolwot

        The instrumental data are more accurate than the paleo data.

        lolwot, please interpret the following OBSERVED instrumental data for us:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/compress:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.3/compress:12/derivative/normalise

      • “lolwot, please interpret the following OBSERVED instrumental data for us:”

        Okay. It vindicates Micheal Mann’s hockey stick graph. It shows CO2 level relates directly to Global Temperature, which means current temperatures are far higher than the Medieval “warm” Period.

      • You are assuming the paleo data is correct. I don’t.

        Do you agree that human control of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is impossible?

      • As the paleo data fails after 1960’s, how can it be valid 1000 years ago?

      • Girma asks:

        “Do you agree that human control of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is impossible?”
        _____

        Absolutely not impossible. There is no physical reason why humans cannot control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and some day it may in fact be simply taken for granted that we are geoengineering this planet for a maximum life-sustaining climate, of which CO2 levels will be only one variable we control. But that’s a bit beyond your grasp Girma, so carry on…

      • R. Gates, what hinders the waters from absorbing the extra (human) CO2 when the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere increases?

      • Edim,

        The issue is one of rates. The rate of anthropogenic CO2 emission versus the rate of natural short-term and long-term uptake. The oceans and biosphere can only absorb so much each year on the short-term side of things, and the longer-term uptake is driven by the rock-carbon cycle. Current output RATE exceeds natural short and long-term sequestration rate by about 2 ppm per year. Though there is some indication that the hydrological cycle may accelerate, and thus more sequestration occurring through rock weathering, slowing this output rate down or increasing sequestration rates through geoengineering are the only options if controlling CO2 levels is the goal.

      • R.Gates, the oceans can only absorb so much each year because it’s relatively warm. When they cool, they will absorb much more and the annual growth (and the airborne fraction) will decrease.

      • So Edim,

        As the ocean have been warming for several decades, when exactly did you expect them to suddenly cool?

        And if the ocean did suddenly cool, then all that energy would have to pass through the atmosphere on the way to space and we’d get one heck of a round of tropospheric warming. But as it seems unlikely that is to happen, I’m wondering when and how you think it might.

      • R Gates said;

        “The issue is one of rates. The rate of anthropogenic CO2 emission versus the rate of natural short-term and long-term uptake. The oceans and biosphere can only absorb so much each year on the short-term side of things, and the longer-term uptake is driven by the rock-carbon cycle. Current output RATE exceeds natural short and long-term sequestration rate by about 2 ppm per year”

        Professor Salby has carried out the most extensive investigation into co2 anthropeginc and natural and concluded that mankind’s contribution to the increase in co2 is a mere 4% of the increase.

        Your argument is therefore baseless.

      • R. Gates, I expect (and predict) that this:

        will continue in a very similar fashion (SST too). The 30-year linear trend will drop like in the 1940s/50s and it will be basically zero by ~2020.

      • Edim said:

        “R. Gates, I expect (and predict) that this:
        http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p623/Oefinell/30yrLR.jpg

        Okay then, you expect an increasingly warmer future, with natural variability leading to “plateaus” in between long periods of constant warming so that the warming is not constantly up, but quite in line with the expectations of GCM’s. Very good then, we agree. You realize I hope that your chart shows RATES of change, which have mainly been positive over the past century or so, thus, a warmer world is in our future…we agree!

      • R. Gates

        My “Grandpappy” told me never to bet on the weather – and I’ll take that to include the climate.

        But if I were a betting man, I would agree with you that it is very likely to continue warming at an underlying long-term rate of around 0.6C per century, as it has since the modern record started in 1850.

        Since this warming has occurred in what appears to be ~30-year warming cycles followed by ~30 year cycles of slight cooling, I’d guess that this pattern would continue.

        We just finished one of those warming cycles around the end of 2000, and it has cooled slightly since then, so I’d guess that the present “pause” in the warming will likely continue for a couple of decades before warming starts again.

        But I sure as hell wouldn’t bet on it.

        Max

        PS I do have a bet with one of the posters here made a few years ago, namely that the HadCRUT3 record will not have a year with a higher temperature than 1998 up through the end of 2012. Looks like I’ll win that one – but I’m not going to make any new bets.

      • Max,

        We probably mainly disagree as to the cause of the long-term trend, but not the general direction. You, it seems, would minimize or negate any anthropogenic contribution, while I would see it as increasingly a factor, especially since around 1960.

        You seem likely to win your bet BTW, but not so sure what the basis was nor when you made it. Which temperature record exactly did you bet on and when did you make that bet? By some accounts, 2010 is the warmest year on record globally, but of course skeptics and others love 1998 from the big El Nino warming. Either way, both 2010 and 1998 will be shattered in upcoming years, it seems we both agree on that, regardless of cause.

      • R. Gates, I’m not sure you really agree. No warming for 30 years by 2020?

      • lolwot

        “CO2 is a proxy for temperature”?

        No thanks, just give me old-fashioned temperature measurements.

        We can then compare these with CO2 measurements, to see how well they correlate.

        BTW, since 1850 the temperature record is pretty much a “random walk”. There is no robust statistical correlation with CO2.

        And you know that without correlation, causation is extremely unlikely (if not impossible).

        And just because lolwot says “CO2 is a proxy for temperature”, doesn’t make this so.

        Keep trying, lolwot.

        Max

      • On the contrary there is a very nice corelation.
        plus temp cant be described as a random walk. unphysical.

      • A very nice CO2/T correlation means in general (any time scale), that the global climate shifts from warming to cooling at the maximum CO2 concentrations and vice versa.

      • lolwot | November 18, 2012 at 11:31 am |
        Don’t you know that CO2 is a proxy for temperature

        Ah so that’s how the science became settled. Always wondered.

      • lolwot : “CO2 is a proxy for temperature”

        Has someone sneakily stolen lolwot’s edentity to make him look stupid ? Not fair, guys.

    • “Nowadays, when the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 4 % of total CO2 emissions, the manmade CO2 emissions control only 4% of the about 395 ppm CO2 content. Thus the present anthropogenic share of CO2 in atmosphere is only about 16 ppm at the most, whereas IPCC assumes – without any evidence in reality – that all the increase of CO2 in atmosphere during the industrialized period of time is anthropogenic, which makes a little over 100 ppm instead of 16 ppm. That anthropogenic share of 4 % in the total CO2 emissions makes even the anthropogenic share in the yearly recent increase of about 2 ppm CO2 be only 0.08 ppm CO2. This anthropogenic share is so low that one has not been able to detect it in reality.”

      It seems to me the idea that humans are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 to be an unsupportable position, but likewise it seems difficult to prove that human have caused 4% or less of the increase.

      A problem is the quantity of human emission is quite vague- and focuses on fossil fuel use because of convenience. And so it’s said human emission is around 30 billion tonnes per year. Or more foolishly, 32.12 or 29.015 billion tonnes per year.
      Though the bigger issue is quantities involved in “natural” carbon cycle.
      Philosophically, there is problem of dividing humans from nature: the old Man vs Nature, as though humans were not a part of nature. And artificial division becomes problematic when one brings into the topic the land use as source of CO2 emission.
      So if one were to the bother doing some calculations which only used fossil fuel emission, one open to argument that one neglecting human land use.

      Which predictably would then be claimed is larger than fossil use- but this has been somewhat neglected, because it muddles the narrative in regard the crazy war against fossil fuel use.

      Or in other words, we have some evil idiots ranting and raving about human CO2 emission being ultimate destructive factor of our world, but at same time this value is undefined.
      \So, it’s their religion, obviously. And if this religion wasn’t trying oppress everyone, then one could be somewhat tolerant to their religious views.

      So can we say the rise in human population from say, 1 billion to 7 billion has caused a increase of 4% in the increase of global CO2?
      And other than have large portion of 7 billion people die, what would the difference be if you had 7 billion people using some other technology
      other then what currently being used.

      One can think to future and assume human population of say 10 billion.

      I don’t think there is any problem with higher human population of 10 billion or more, rather the problem now, and in the future, is quality of human government.
      I will grant that bad governments will have an easier time *managing* 1 billion people as compared to 7 or 10 billion people.

      Even horrific wars are probably not going to lower human population- a studies has shown that in regions of war one has the highest human population growth- so generally it seems we will have higher population in the future [say somewhere around 10 billion] and it seems instead trying to control population, what need to do is control government.
      And start with what should be, obvious, any totalitarian government is bad news. And global regime which given a mandate to control CO2 is
      a totalitarian government.
      We don’t appear to be going in this direction, because it appears we have more sense than to do this, but there many fools who are power crazed and imagine this would be good idea.

      • In a sense it might be most accurate to say that humans have caused about 200% of the increase, while nature has reduced that to what we can measure in the atmosphere.

        It seems very likely that there are no significant other sources for the increase than the human influence. Thus the two valid numbers are 100% and about 200% and the choice between them depends on the interpretation (not on uncertainty on what’s going on). There’s natural variability, but that averages out over periods of a few years. That variability is what Salby has observed.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Sources and sinks are known to limits of greater than +/- 20%. This leaves plenty of room for natural sources to overwhelm the 4% of anthropogenic emissions in a naturally warming world. This is what Salby noted and it is valid.

        To my mind it is not relevant. Economies will grow and we may be on track for 8%, 16%, 32%, etc in this century. A priori – this may be a little difficult to justify.

      • “In a sense it might be most accurate to say that humans have caused about 200% of the increase, while nature has reduced that to what we can measure in the atmosphere.”

        I was going to mention that, but I thought I get some screaming, foul.
        But since you said it, I will say some think it’s more than 100% of the global CO2 increase is caused by human activity.

        One ppm is equal to *around* 8 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
        If you assume that only fossil fuel and cement making causes around 32 billion tonnes of “human emissions”, then 32 is 4 ppm. And we having around 2 ppm yearly increase- hence the idea of 200%.

        The other thing is that nature is feared to be having a reduced ability to absorbed “the large amounts human emissions” in the future. Despite the evidence, contrary.

        And both are a simplistic understandings.
        And informed by the myth of Man vs Nature. Which sort of goes like, Humans are this big terrible force and Nature is some timid and placid creature. And Nature is Good and Man is Evil. Etc. Very old religion- with a fair number of followers.

        I agree, with Hitchhiker Guide view- humans are mostly harmless. And preferable if Humans were a bit more dangerous, rather than remaining somewhat pathetic. The Universe is big- really big.

        “It seems very likely that there are no significant other sources for the increase than the human influence. Thus the two valid numbers are 100% and about 200% and the choice between them depends on the interpretation (not on uncertainty on what’s going on). There’s natural variability, but that averages out over periods of a few years. That variability is what Salby has observed.”

        It would appear that the apparent sudden increase in global CO2 starting in the 20th Century is human caused.
        I think Salby has offered a compelling case which might provide additional answers.
        And other than broad indications I am not very confident in the proxy record of global CO2. Or not willing to have the record of CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa being considered as equal to these proxy measurements.
        I think that if people are confident that CO2 levels remain nearly constant for thousands of years, then I would say they are over confident.
        And would say that this kind of mistake has been made in the past.

        As general observation, there are too many elephants in the room.
        So generally I am willing to accept the idea that human may be adding more than 100% of the increase in CO2 or less than 4% of added CO2, but tend to think that for next decade or so we will continue to have increase global about 2 ppm per year- regardless of which extreme is correct.
        I do, think it would prudent to conduct more experiments regarding Ocean fertilization to determine if this could a be significant means of altering global CO2 [also want to know effects upon ocean food production].
        Such knowledge could serve our survival toolkit, if there is a need to reduce CO2 levels [and it’s possible factors other than human activity could significantly increase global CO2 level].
        But at this point in time, if we had the option [with zero costs] which would reduce global CO2 levels, I would not consider it a good idea to do so.
        This because our current levels of CO2 seem to be having more benefit as compared to if they were at lower levels- in terms of vegetation and the growing of crops.

      • “Even horrific wars are probably not going to lower human population”

        I don’t agree. There may come a time when one regime or other deploys a DNA bomb, aimed at taking out a subset of humanity, inevitably some of their own population, but a larger proportion of the one they are trying to destroy. It’s just a matter of time.

    • Lance Endersbee … I hadn’t heard that name before. Apparently another Aussie civil engineer.

      Lots of Aussies believe that excess co2 is not caused by man, this Ensersbee one included.

  64. lolwot

    According to IPCC, global mean temperatures were higher than now as shown: http://bit.ly/UO9K02

    • Why didn’t CO2 levels rise higher back then according to your own (or Salby’s) arguments? Something is not quite connecting here, is it?

      • They were likely higher or comparable to today’s levels. The correlation is between temperature levels and CO2 change by the way.

      • If ice cores showed even a little evidence of this, we would have heard about it by now. They don’t.

      • They cannot. The bubbles are not air-tight.

      • You seem to be one of the people who think (or actually are sure) that when Man puts 200 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere and it goes up by 100 ppm, they have nothing to do with each other.

      • Jim, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is an integral of temperature over the period of accumulation – that’s the observation. Only one variable (T) is needed to calculate/estimate the change in atmospheric CO2.

      • So what happened to the 200 ppm Man added to the integral?

      • Well, very roughly one half is in the atmosphere and the other half was absorbed by the waters (and other sinks/reservoirs). At lower temperature levels, much less would have remained in the atmosphere. At even lower levels, the change would be zero or negative. I don’t have it here, but I recall that for the HADCRUT3 temperature anomaly and MLO CO2, i got the following formula:

        dCO2 = 2*Ta + 1.2; dCO2 in ppm/year, Ta in K.
        So:
        Ta = +0.4 K, dCO2 = +2.0 ppm/year
        Ta = +0.2 K, dCO2 = +1.6 ppm/year
        Ta = +0.0 K, dCO2 = +1.2 ppm/year
        Ta < -0.6 K, dCO2 < 0.0 ppm/year

      • “They cannot. The bubbles are not air-tight.”

        So to be clear you are not only arguing that the mainstream understanding of the carbon cycle in which man explains most of the recent CO2 rise is totally wrong, but you are also separately arguing that the mainstream understanding of CO2 measurements from ice cores is totally wrong too?

      • lolwot, you got it.

      • Edim, even if you look closely at those dCO2/dt graphs, you see an offset that is not correlated with temperature. This offset integrates out to Man’s contribution, and, because it is always there, ends up dominating over time. Salby claimed not to understand the carbon cycle and went on to prove it.

      • Jim D

        You ask “what happened to the 200 ppm man added?”

        On a year-to-year basis there does not appear to be any correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but averaged over several years it appears that half of it got absorbed by the biosphere and oceans, with the other half “remaining” in the atmosphere.

        IF the oceans really warmed very slightly on average it seems that the oceans would not be absorbing added CO2, but would be releasing it (IPCC’s “climate-carbon cycle coupling” premise)..

        Whether or not the oceans REALLY warmed is doubtful, as there are no good data prior to ARGO and ARGO results seem to show no warming since 2003.

        There is no doubt, however, that plants absorb more CO2 at higher atmospheric concentrations, so this is very likely where a good part of the added CO2 went.

        The “percentage of human CO2″ which “remains” in the atmosphere has been decreasing since Mauna Loa measurements started (by around 5 percentage points out of a bit more than 50%), so this is an indication that something out there is absorbing an ever-increasing amount.

        Whether or not this downward trend will continue is not certain, but there is no reason to believe that it will suddenly stop after 50+ years.

        Then there is Professor Salby’s suggestion that the entire carbon cycle is so large that a human signal is hard to find, especially in a slightly warming world, where the oceans would be releasing CO2.

        So your question raises a lot of new questions, which are as yet unanswered.

        Max

      • Girma postulated that today’s high CO2 levels were as a result of the MWP, and that the “800 year lag” in the ice core CO2/temperature data proves it. All the billions of pounds of CO2 that humans have pumped into the air over the past few decades and centuries has nothin’ ta do with it. Amazing. You can see that Girma is quite a piece of work…

  65. A glimpse at what is in store for us in the next four years:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-a-government-agency-answerable-to-no-one/2012/11/16/27a4f604-2f53-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html

    Add to Will’s concern about the increasing power of unelected bureaucrats over financial services and healthcare, the control over the energy economy the EPA is in the process of asserting. What we are getting by presidential fiat is what the progressives didn’t get in the 60s when their dreams of revolution failed.

    Progressives who are dismantling the constitution through bureaucracy and the courts, and the moderates and independents who support them for “fairness” and “the children,” don’t realize the risks of the system they are creating.

    To quote from my favorite movie, A Man for All Seasons: ” And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?” We are seeing the greatest flattening of the constitution since Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court to force them to ignore the law to allow the first great shift of power to the regulatory state.

    Progressives, including their moderate and independent allies, disdain democracy when it gets in the way of their immediate policy concerns (ala CAGW). After all, why should a superior elite be restrained in their control over the great unwashed by the votes of those ignorant masses? But you are crating a world you eventually won’t be able to recognize, and won’t want to live in when you do.

  66. Chief Hydrologist

    Okay CH, I will say it for you:

    You were completely wrong about what S&T says about the implications for C21st warming. This statement is incorrect and misleading:

    S&T are not actually predicting warmer

    Wrong and misleading.

    You misrepresented S&T over the course of several threads in the promotion of a specious argument about the likely frequency, duration and significance of cooling episodes during this century.

    The very scientists you quote ad nauseam do not agree with your conclusions. And although I showed you the relevant quote from S&T more times that I can count, you were utterly incapable of reading/understanding the words in front of your nose. You have completely discredited yourself. All you had to do was *listen*, but no.

    What is actually worse is that despite being exposed as being entirely wrong, you haven’t got the decency to admit it and accept that this largely demolishes your position. You literally *cannot* say ‘sorry, I was wrong’. It’s *pitiful*.

    Which brings us to the appropriate and final absurdity. Here’s you, being your usual unpleasant blog crank self earlier:

    ‘The ability of space cadets to ignore evidence is constantly astonishing.’

    You have proved yourself to be a perfect space cadet and more besides, haven’t you? Nice work, CH. BBD – Booger Brain Dead

    Passive aggressive when not actually being aggressive and abusive. The cooling episode is fairly obvious – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703 – and should last another decade or three. The Tsonis papers are about climate shifts. Chaotic bifurcations in the instrument record.

    For those unaware – Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

    It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

    Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication. I am as I keep saying a climate catastrophist (in the sense of Rene Thom) and refuse to predict past the current cool state. These states are inherently unpredictable.

    Swanson and Tsonis stated in their 2009 paper that these shifts imply sensitivity and that warming may well be greater than predicted in this century. It may well be cooler. There is no theoretical justification that these spontaneous reorganisations of the climate system – and of cloud cover especially – will be to cool or warm. S&T09 did not predict warming because as they are well aware – unlike BBD – this mechanism they are talking about (A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts) is in principle deterministic but practically incalculable.

    So my calm reply prompted this tirade of millennialist cult of AGW groupthink space cadet outrage. Simply because dynamical complexity leads to uncertainty. I keep suggesting that he Google the relevant terms and educate himself. But perhaps there are people who are unable to grasp this idea. The ill-informed arguments of the webster with Tomas come to mind.

    BBD is obnoxiously stupid and opinionated and has such a facile approach. This is definitely a pattern with the space cadets. As an unpleasant blog crank – the ability to ignore anomalous information is great and the toleration of dissention from the groupthink memes before descending into absurd hand waving tirades is negligible.

    As for saying it for me – thanks but no thanks

    • Particular Physicist

      There are many things here folks disagree on, but that BBD is faraway the most obnoxious blogger is surely beyond question. (So quite possibly how he got himself banned elsewhere).
      Has he *ever* written a non-arrogant, civil comment?

  67. Predicting the Weather; a haku:

    Thinking linear,
    Thinking Gaussian
    Jest gets yer no-where.

    (In the great see-saw climate debate.)

  68. (Professor Mojib Latif)
    An inconvenient truth about global warming

    http://bbc.in/4ADIxX

    The global warming narrative – that mankind’s addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate – may be about to go seriously off message.

    Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world’s leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.

    Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt. [This is identical to my conclusions]

    “The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm”.
    With apologies to Al Gore, professor Latif’s finding is something of an “inconvenient truth” for the global warming debate.

    And the timing couldn’t be much worse. World leaders are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to hammer out an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Treaty. It certainly won’t help if there are a couple of inches of snow on the ground outside the convention centre, and climate models are predicting a sustained period of steady, or even falling, global temperatures.

    Professor Philip Stott believes climate sceptics may seize on the research as evidence that the whole global warming hypothesis is fundamentally flawed: If natural cycles can interrupt, or even reverse climate change, maybe we don’t need to take it so seriously.

    It’s not a view shared by professor Latif, who points to the resumption of warming as the cycle completes itself in a few years. The best we can hope for, he says, is a brief respite from global warming.

  69. How sad that Anthony Watts did not allow OManuel a few hours of telethon time to air his invaluable views.

  70. What IPCC denies =>http://bit.ly/RNiu2d

    Which is oscillation of global mean temperature by about 0.6 deg C every 30 years.

    They call us deniers.

    A kettle calls the pot black.

  71. Chief Hydrologist

    Funny – I remember a discussion about McWilliams with Jim.

    ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision. ‘

    The bit I bolded is apparently all that you need to read if you’re Jim. The latter parts invoke probabalisitc forecasts.

    Having consulted Tim Palmer’s Lorenzian Meteorological Office

    ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

    The drought in the US is only getting worse. Negative PDO and positive AMO plays havoc with US rainfall. People have been saying this for years. Standing patterns change and redistribute rainfall globally. There is not much of a change in net global rainfall – only where it falls.

    • I think JimD took one of those speed skipping courses.

    • CH, ‘irreducible imprecision’ due to natural variations is an obvious reason why they run climate models as ensembles. This produces the error bars you always see with them.

      • So you run models as ensembles? What a novel idea! Then you can just pick the ones you want to “prove” what you want, when ya want it, like that Trenberth thing with humidity, right?

        Ya know, that Trendberth paper reminds me of some other paper. I don;t recall it being referenced in the Trenberth. I guess he must have just independently stumble on the same thing.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        We are way back here are we. Each of the ensemble model runs are an equal likelihood projection. These are averaged over the ensemble and the range indicated.

        Irreducible imprecision is a property of the models themsleves as a result of senstive dependence and strucural instability. Small variations in input – within the range of feasible inputs – causes the solution to diverge exponentially with time. The models themselves are chaotic in the physics sense and it has nothing to do with variability of climate – although that in itself is a problem.

        The only way to explore the limits of solution divergence is to use systematically designed families of models and report as probabilities. As Tim Palmer suggests in my quote below and in the Slingo an Palmer 2011 link.

        The math is quite clear – read Slingo and Palmer.

      • Hmm? I seem to recall another time Trenberth selected a model or two. Wasn’t there some silly confusion over whether clouds were feedback or forcings?

        Luckily we have one of the sharpest, most objective minds in the whole Climate Science world on top of the problem. He can just make a “minor adjustment” and fix the whole thing.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Capt.

        One of the things I like to quote from McWilliams is the 2 plausibility criteria for models. One is the breadth and depth of the models – the physics. The second is a posteriori solution behaviour. That’s right they pull it from their arse and send it to the IPCC.

        Cheers

      • Then they are sitting pretty chief :) They got plenty of arses.

      • This was why I was wondering why you keep quoting Tsonis, who uses GCM results and is clearly a warmist as gbaikie pointed out, and now also McWilliams and Palmer who are far from skeptics too.

  72. Good on ya’ Chief, to yer own self be true. :-)

  73. “In 2008 I discovered I was wrong. These were not cycles. These were climate shifts in a system that is dynamically complex – and therefore exquisitely sensitive to small changes.”

    Why can’t cycles be dynamically complex?
    Isn’t the Sun dynamically complex?
    And wouldn’t small changes affect the Sun?
    And the Sun does have cycles.

    But whether one chooses to call that massive raging inferno, exquisitely sensitive.

    It reminds me of Hell Boy.
    And that Mars could fall in Sun and might not really have too much affect upon the Sun- though the eruption from it, might very seriously effect Earth [149 million km from it].

    “It matters little – I am a true natural philosopher and I follow my curiosity. I am beholden to no one and owe no loyalties. Why Tsonis, McWilliams and Palmer you ask? Because this is truly a new paradigm. There are no first or second order effects. There are control variables and a system that responds in the ways a complex and dynamic systems behaves. There is no proximate cause and effect. There are tremendous energies cascading through powerful mechanisms.”

    Aren’t you getting a bit carried away, by saying there are no first or second order effects?

    • Dynamically complex is sort of like the Wizard of Oz blustering behind the curtain while yanking on his control variable. The movie already has been made.

  74. regarding the arctic ice melt argument. I haven’t noticed anyone bringing up the possibility of a long term trend in ocean heat transport being a possible cause as is indicated in this reconstruction

    Surface changes in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the last millennium : Nature Communications : N

  75. I see people have been naughty and messed up the string yet again.

  76. I was shunned. I was now shunned, insulted and despised by both sides.

    That’s because you are error-prone, dishonest and profoundly unpleasant.

    • WTF?

      This was a reply to CH, far below. The nesting is broken.

    • CH

      Don’t you understand that your foul public behaviour means that you cannot complain – cannot say *anything* in fact – about how others describe you?

      Especially when it is succinct, truthful and contains no overtly abusive language.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Will this work at all? You are a nasty little troll who has managed to insult just about everyone you cross. It is hypocritical in the extreme to expect anything else – but in the short time we have known you we have come to expect nothing else.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        No it doesn’t work. Blah blah duh has taken hypocrisy to the limit. He scans and copies and pastes without any understanding. I have shown that he doesn’t understand the methods of science or the structure even of scientific papers.

        He insults and then characterises replies in kind as crankery. It is all about scoring debating points in his own fervid imaginings and all of it so repetitive and lacking character, good faith and veracity. A disgusting and appalling exhibition.

      • CH

        Stll lying. Such energy.

        I have shown that he doesn’t understand the methods of science or the structure even of scientific papers.

        No you haven’t. You got caught in a direct lie about S&T which you refuse to admit because it demolishes your contrarian hold-out against the scientific consensus that C21st warming trends will be positive and >2C by century’s end.

        Here, again, is your original lie:

        S&T are not actually predicting warmer

        Here is one of your innumerable repetitions of it:

        S&T09 did not predict warming because as they are well aware – unlike BBD – this mechanism they are talking about (A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts) is in principle deterministic but practically incalculable.

        Here, again is S&T saying the exact opposite

        warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models

        See? You were completely wrong. It’s hard to imagine how this could be a mistake since I gave you that quote countless times. But what proves that you are a liar is your flat refusal to admit that you were wrong despite being shown unequivocal evidence.

        That’s lying, and you are still doing it, which is contemptible.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You behave appallingly and have no sense of what science is all about. Just what do you do for a living? Do you have any science training at all?

        Just of help out in interpreting scientific papers -http://www.scidev.net/en/practical-guides/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html

        Never say I am not helpful to neophytes – especially those with a monomania.

      • CH

        See my comment immediately above. See your response. You appear to be mentally ill. There is no other obvious explanation for absolute rejection of unequivocal evidence.

        Unless you care to provide your own?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You behave appallingly and like webby have absolutely no scientific chops at all. Primes examples of cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.Thick as 2 short planks and abusive and noxious.

        ‘Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.

        So how much will uncertainties in climate-change predictions of the large-scale reduce if models are run at 20, 2 or even 0.2 km resolution rather than say 100 km resolution? Equally, we may ask whether there is a certain resolution (e.g. 20 km), where it might be feasible to represent small-scale motions using stochastic equations, rather than trying to resolve them? These questions urgently need answering as the pressures grow on the climate science community to estimate, and if possible reduce uncertainties, and provide more reliable and confident predictions of regional climate change, hazardous weather and extremes.

        Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.

        Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        There you – unequivocal eviddence tthat nothing is certain.

        ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

        There you are – unequivocal evidence that both climate and models are uncertain. I would say you are an idiot – but that’s probably widely understood by now.

      • Isn’t that telling that chief shows a chart by Palmer, Figure 12, that shows fluctuations about a baseline but no overall change in average temperature level?

        Bizarre this fixation on natural variations. Engineers that continue to confuse obvious noise for a signal don’t last long. They become astrologers.

      • CH

        There you – unequivocal eviddence tthat nothing is certain.

        A single modelling study is not ‘unequivocal evidence’ of anything at all. Nor does ENSO drive centennial climate change. If the climate system is steadily forced by GHGs, ENSO will walk along the upward trend, roughly cancelling itself out as it goes. It is an oscillation, remember.

        All you are doing is trying to bury my earlier comments under yards of endlessly repeated and misleading waffle about *short-term* uncertainty.

        The problem here is not *short term* uncertainty.

        The problem here is that you misrepresent everything you possibly can to create the *false impression* that *short term* uncertainty means that the centennial projections can be dismissed. Hence the farcical extent of your mendacity about what S&T actually says.

        There you are – unequivocal evidence that both climate and models are uncertain. I would say you are an idiot – but that’s probably widely understood by now.

        I am no idiot CH. Nor am I a liar. You have emerged here as both.

      • BBD

        Use your head before you engage your mouth (or keyboard)

        NCDC/NOAA have provided us the specific data that show that the top 4 of the 20th century’s top ten El Niño events occurred after 1980, and that the impact on the temperature anomaly of these represented around 40% of the warming observed during the late 20thC warming cycle (1976-2000).

        Sure, that leaves some for other postulated forcings (solar, GHGs, other ocean currents, etc.), but you can’t write off the El Niño effect on late 20th century warming just because you don’t happen to like it.

        And to call the Chief an “idiot and liar” because he calls your attention to the importance of El Niño events on our planet’s climate is not only rude, it’s downright silly.

        Max

      • manacker

        Read what I write before you engage you keyboard:

        If the climate system is steadily forced by GHGs, ENSO will walk along the upward trend, roughly cancelling itself out as it goes. It is an oscillation, remember.

        It’s getting warmer, so the *amplitude* of the oscillation is increasing:

        NCDC/NOAA have provided us the specific data that show that the top 4 of the 20th century’s top ten El Niño events occurred after 1980, and that the impact on the temperature anomaly of these represented around 40% of the warming observed during the late 20thC warming cycle (1976-2000).

        Where does this bit about 40% of late C20th warming being attributable to ENSO come from? It flatly contradicts Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) and I would like a reference.

        F&R11 found that although ENSO has the strongest *short term* effect on GAT, the net effect over the last three decades was slightly negative (see table 3):

        Finally, we list the linear trend in the signals due to ENSO, volcanic forcing and solar variation in table 3. The magnitudes of these trend contributions are quite small compared to the overall trends. In fact the net trend due to these three factors is negative for all data sets except UAH, for which it is zero. Hence these factors have not contributed to an upward trend in temperature data, rather they have contributed a very slight downward trend. Except for UAH data, the trend which is attributable to global warming is therefore very slightly greater than that which is observed in the unadjusted data.

      • BBD

        “[ENSO] is an oscillation, remember”

        Duh!

        Of course it is.

        And so is the pattern of our global temperature.

        And the fact that the cycle of global warming over the late 20th century (the IPCC “poster period”) coincides with a period of unusually high level of El Niño events, according to NCDC/NOAA data, makes it apparent that much of the late 20th century warming oscillation was caused by ENSO.

        This cycle appears to have ended most recently, with more La Niña activity and a “pause” in the warming (i.e.slight cooling).

        The underlying long-term warming trend of 0.6C per century, which we have seen since coming out of the LIA in 1850, is something else. This will most likely continue.

        It’s like Girma depicts: a sine curve on a tilted axis.

        Max

      • BBD

        Reference to the NCDC/NOAA data I cited above, as requested:

        http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10elnino.html

        Enjoy!

        Max

      • Max, your NOAA link does not support your wildly incorrect claim that ENSO is responsible for 40% of modern warming. This statement is rubbish. See F&R11 above.

      • BBD

        Don’t be a dullard.

        Take the NCDC/NOAA data and superimpose it on the temperature record. You will see that the data tell us that roughly 40% of the 1976-2000 warming was a result of the ENSO activity.

        Max

      • And the fact that the cycle of global warming over the late 20th century (the IPCC “poster period”) coincides with a period of unusually high level of El Niño events, according to NCDC/NOAA data, makes it apparent that much of the late 20th century warming oscillation was caused by ENSO.

        Non-argument by incorrect assertion. See F&R11 above. The net effect of ENSO on *five* temperature indices over the last 30 years was slightly negative.

      • BBD

        Forget F&R11.

        Look at the NCDC/NOAA data instead.

        Max

      • Take the NCDC/NOAA data and superimpose it on the temperature record. You will see that the data tell us that roughly 40% of the 1976-2000 warming was a result of the ENSO activity.

        No Manacker, enough pseudo-science. I will NOT ‘forget F&R11′. In that study you will see *demonstrated* a documented attempt to quantify and remove the effect of ENSO from five temperature records.

        The effect of ENSO on temperature trends in *all five* records over the last 30 years is slightly negative.

        Stop the denial and the ludicrous claim that ENSO is responsible for 40% of recent warming. It is not. You have no evidence, no references. Just self-serving lies. And I am *sick to death* of the self-serving lies here.

      • BBD

        Rather than blathering on about “self serving lies” read the NCDC/NOAA report I cited. Then clear all the clutter oout of your head and read it again. Repeat from step 1, if necessary.

        These data show that the top four El Nino events out of the top ten of the 20thC occurred from 1980 to 1998, culminating in the “super El Nino” that everyone knows was a primary cause of the record high temperature for 1998.

        These El Ninos contributed to global warming by the amounts shown over the periods shown, according to NCDC/NOAA

        Put it all together and you have around 40% of the late 20thC warming caused by unusually high number of El Nino events.

        We now have a period of slight cooling (the “pause”), despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.

        It is being blamed (at least partially) on increased La Nina activity which is overriding the AGW signal..

        If La Nina is causing the current cooling it is quite logical that its reverse, El Nino, (at least partially) caused the previous warming.

        Sorry ’bout that, BBD. That’s just the way it is.

        Max

      • manacker

        You are being obtuse, again. Look at the *duration of the anomaly* associated with each El Nino. That’s the entire temperature anomaly by the way, not the much shorter peak

        Now read F&R11, or at least the section I point you to. Now think about the negative temperature anomalies associated with La Nina events (not given in your NOAA reference).

        Now think about what F&R *actually says*, which is that ENSO has a strong but *short term* effect BUT over the long term (32 years in the study) the net effect on trends is slightly negative.

        NOAA doesn’t contradict F&R. Both contradict your made-up pseudo-science 40% claim.

        Clear the rubbish out of your head and start again.

      • From the NOAA link:

        Over recent years, El Niño events have become more frequent as the global temperature anomalies associated with each El Niño continue to increase. This means that the extreme regional weather and climate anomalies associated with El Niño are being exacerbated by increasingly higher temperatures. The warmer conditions have been linked to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

      • BBD

        You have to add up the “short-term anomalies” over the entire period.

        For example, if ENSO caused an anomaly over land and sea of X degrees over a 8 month period of a given year, then the globally and annually averaged land and sea temperature anomaly for that year was increased by 0.667X. “Without” the ENSO anomaly the GAAALAST anomaly for that year would have been lower by 0.667X.

        The year 1998 is a good example. We all know that it was “so hot” because of an ENSO anomaly PLUS an overall warming trend. “Without” the ENSO anomaly, it would have been cooler.

        Integrate all of these ENSO anomalies, and you see that roughly 40% of the observed warming trend resulted from them.

        Now we have the opposite happening today, and CAGW proponents are telling us “it’s because a strongly negative La Nina signal is masking the underlying AGW warming signal”. MetOffice has simply called it “natural variability”.

        Call it what you will but it all makes sense.

        And if La Nina is (partly) responsible for the present slight cooling despite unabated emissions of GHGs, then its counterpart, El Nino was (partly) responsible for the previous warming period.

        You can’t get around it BBD.

        There’s no point discussing this further – you are simply denying published data that don’t fit in with your paradigm.

        Max

      • manacker

        There’s no point discussing this further – you are simply denying published data that don’t fit in with your paradigm.

        No, that is what you are doing. And I have pointed out exactly how you are doing it and why your made-up 40% claim is nonsense. The word salad above does *nothing* to change this. Actual analysis such as F&R11 – as opposed to wittering – demonstrates unequivocally that you are hopelessly wrong.

        You are correct about one thing though. There is no point in further discussion. You are *in denial* Max. Your own source doesn’t support your wild and exaggerated claim. Nothing does. Nothing at all. You need to deal with the yawning gap between what you *believe* and what can be demonstrated.

        As I say, you are deep in denial. Until you recover your wits there’s no reasoning with you.

      • Integrate all of these ENSO anomalies, and you see that roughly 40% of the observed warming trend resulted from them.

        Demonstrably false. From F&R11:

        Finally, we list the linear trend in the signals due to ENSO, volcanic forcing and solar variation in table 3. The magnitudes of these trend contributions are quite small compared to the overall trends. In fact the net trend due to these three factors is negative for all data sets except UAH, for which it is zero. Hence these factors have not contributed to an upward trend in temperature data, rather they have contributed a very slight downward trend. Except for UAH data, the trend which is attributable to global warming is therefore very slightly greater than that which is observed in the unadjusted data.

        Take of the denialist goggles and read the words Max.

      • BBD

        Foster + Rahmstorf 2011 are telling us what their models tell them.

        It is inconceivable that a period with many very strong El Ninos (and practically no La Ninas) had an overall negative ENSO impact.

        It is also inconceivable that we now blame a shift from El Ninos to La Ninas for overwhelming the GH effect, if there was no warming effect of the El Ninos in the first place.

        Fuddidaboudit.

        When I see the observed data from NCDC/NOAA I see that the net warming impact of El Ninos was significant (~40% of total).

        There is no point discussing this firther, BBD.

        You reject the NCDC/NOAA observations and I do not.

        End of story.

        Max

      • Manacker

        Foster + Rahmstorf 2011 are telling us what their models tell them.

        No, F&R document what their multiple regression analysis demonstrates. Trying to play the ‘models are crap’ card is plain silly. They didn’t use an AOGCM, you buffoon!

        It is inconceivable that a period with many very strong El Ninos (and practically no La Ninas) had an overall negative ENSO impact.

        That’s argument from incredulity. Go back to F&R’s *documented results*.

        When I see the observed data from NCDC/NOAA I see that the net warming impact of El Ninos was significant (~40% of total).

        What you imagine you can see is of no relevance. Go back to F&R’s *documented results*.

        You reject the NCDC/NOAA observations and I do not.

        1/ As I have repeatedly indicated, NOWHERE do the NCDC observations confirm your plucked-from-thin-air 40%.

        2/ I do not reject these observations. And I’ve already said so, if you could only bring yourself to read what I write:

        NOAA doesn’t contradict F&R. Both contradict your made-up pseudo-science 40% claim.

        You however reject the F&R result which is in a published study. You – not me – are denying results that you don’t like.

        I am astonished at the level of projection going on here. And how can you expect nonsense of the sort you indulge in above to persuade a rational mind? Just how far gone are you?

        It beggars belief.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        BBD asks manacker, “how can you expect nonsense of the sort you indulge in above to persuade a rational mind?” He also says:

        No, F&R document what their multiple regression analysis demonstrates. Trying to play the ‘models are crap’ card is plain silly. They didn’t use an AOGCM, you buffoon!

        BBD calls manacker a buffoon because manacker says Foster & Rahmstorf 2001 used models. BBD points out F&R actually used multiple regression analysis. Of course, all regression analysis, by definition, is modeling…

        Clearly, manacker is a buffoon for saying F&R used models even though F&R used models… because F&R didn’t use AOGCMs.

        It beggars belief.

      • Which has exactly nothing to do with *denial* of F&R11 and *rubbish* about ENSO being responsible for 40% of modern warming.

        Trust you to pick on the irrelevance *only* in your ‘response’.

        Feeble.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        manacker’s point was F&R’s results are due entirely to modeling, meaning they’re susceptible to all the problems of modeling. That means you’re resting your entire argument on a single group’s modeling, and you’ve provided no reason to believe their modeling is accurate. You dismissed manacker’s point by misrepresenting it. I pointed out your misrepresentation, demonstrating the fact you failed to rebut his point.

        You call this irrelevant. I call it pointing out that you’ve spouted off BS rather than address what someone said.

        Stupid.

      • I call it pointing out that you’ve spouted off BS rather than address what someone said.

        Diversionary BS, projection, witless nonsense.

        You ‘sceptics’ are a joke. How *can* you take yourselves so seriously?

        You do realise that the world laughs at you, don’t you?

      • Do *you* have a published reference for the rubbish about ENSO being responsible for 40% of modern warming?

        If not, get lost. I’m bored with the lunacy here.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal.’ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

        This is the one you keep quoting – you obviously missed the main point and why am I not surprised.

        Let’s see – if you exclude 1976/77 and 1998/01 ENSO dragon-kings we are left with ‘the true forced warming signal’. I’m not so sure. The satellite data says something entirely dfferent.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. ‘ IPCC 3.4.4.1

        You are just a serial pest with no depth of understanding and a penchant for insults and abuse. This seems to be acceptable behaviour in some circles.

      • CH

        Do *you* have a published reference for the rubbish about ENSO being responsible for 40% of modern warming?

        If not, get lost. You I got bored with long ago.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You have shown yourself to be immune to science, to not understand or want to understand and to be abusive and noxious. You excel only in being a serial pest.

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?

        I think that thick as 2 short planks – and having an AGW groupthink monomania – is probably a better descriptor for what I think about you.

      • Lovely picture but I *asked* for references backing up the nonsense claim that ENSO contributed 40% of warming since ~1980. You jumped in, mouthing off, as per. Now play the game or jump out again.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I have provided you with endless links to science – including the IPCC.

        http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

        I will interpret it for you because I know you are an incompetent.

        0.7W/m2 cooling in the infrared and 2.1W/m2 warming as less reflected short wave for a 1.4 W m2 net warming between 1984 and the late 1990’s. All of the warming happened in the SW.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCCC AR4 3.4.4.1

        Low frequency climate variability. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        Surface observed decadal changes in cloud associated with the PDO.

        The evidence suggests that all recent warming was caused by a warm mode of the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation. Whatever effect there might be in greenhouse gases is obscured by natural variation.

        If you have some other evidence – by all means tell someone.

        If you had been paying attention you would know that I think that CO2 emmissions of 4%, 8%, 16%, 32% , etc of natural flux as global economies grow this century is not a priori sustainable. There is a climate sensitivity that arises from the theory of complex systems – which I suggested on a number of occasions that both you and webby read up on. It is not the sensitivity you imagine. It is wildly chaotic behaviour at regions of bifurcation. It is ENSO dragon-kings at 1976/77 and 1998/01 before climate settles into a new, emergent state. It is the unpredictability of the emergent state.

        Frankly I don’t think either of you are capable. However, it is really rather annoying that you continue to peddle your simplistic assumptions with a mistaken certainty. You are most certainly the problem and not the solution as the world continues to not warm for a decade or three more.

        Robert I Ellison
        Chief Hydrologist

      • As mentioned somewhere above, I suggest people read this post on WUWT and this article of which I was co-author..

      • Another geologist, retired from the oil industry, making up stuff.

        So what else is new.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Speaking as the attack smurf masquerading as an electrician making up stuff?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Seems to have gone off the rails? Blah blah duh has gone totally off the rails and then complains when people call him blah blah duh. Bizarre behaviour.

      • CH

        Two points.

        First, it’s obviously not the PDO. Any idiot – even manacker – can see this at a glance.

        Second, another of your pet references doesn’t say what you think it does. All this noise about TOA is just misdirection. What Wong et al. (2005) really says is that OHC is increasing as expected under sustained anthropogenic forcing (see also Levitus et al. 2012). Interannual variability is large, and may affect cloud formation and so TOA, or cloud formation may affect interannual variability and so TOA. But neither is implicated in the long-term increase in OHC. For that, look to anthopogenic forcing.

        So we know that S&T predict warming and the hand-waving about chaotic bifurcation ignores the dominance of anthropogenic forcing on a centennial scale in a sensitive climate system. We know it’s not the PDO just by looking, and now we know that it’s not cloud formation either.

        Your argument is simply a pastiche of misrepresentations. It vanishes under even causal scrutiny.

        Wong et al. (2005):

        Comparison of interannual variability of net flux anomalies between ocean heat storage data and the broadband ERB datasets shows remarkable agreement in both phase and magnitude of these two very different types of datasets. The ocean heat storage data agree
        with the level of interannual variability found in the radiation data. This variation is larger than known variations in aerosol or other radiative forcings in the late 1990s and suggests a closely linked variation in global ocean heat storage and global cloud net radiative forcing. Because phase lag is not expected between these two variables, it remains unclear if slight changes in ocean surface temperature and surface heat fluxes are changing clouds, or if clouds are changing ocean heat storage.

        The magnitude of the global ocean heat storage and net radiation changes have several implications for understanding climate change.

        1) The new results do not support the recent Iris hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001; Lin et al. 2004). As tropical and global SST warms in the late 1990s during the 1997–98 El Niño, the Iris negative feedback predicts net flux to decrease (ocean cooling) as opposed to the increase (ocean heating) seen in Fig. 7.

        2) The ocean heat storage and net radiation data, while showing relatively large interannual variability, are consistent with heating predicted from current state of-the-art coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models (Barnett et al. 2001). The anticipated change in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the next few decades is estimated as ~0.6 W m^2 (decade)^1 (Houghton et al. 2001). The interannual variability in net radiation is of similar magnitude (+/-0.7 W m2). Note that the ocean heat storage dataset for single annual-mean values has a sampling uncertainty of 0.4 W m^2 (1o) so that the larger range of variation in ocean heat storage is more likely due to its larger sampling noise. The radiation dataset has a larger mean bias uncertainty (absolute calibration) but smaller sampling error than the ocean heat storage data. The 10-yr average of ocean heat storage is about 0.6 W m^2, similar to the levels predicted by current climate models for anthropogenic global warming scenarios (Houghton et al. 2001; Hansen et al. 2005).

      • to mistakenly rely on a WFT graph.

        You went frothing berserk last time I posted this graph. What you have *never* done is *explain* why it is misleading. As it happens, I know you can’t, but for some odd reason I feel a great lack of charity towards you so I’m going to insist that you try.

        This will be today’s amusement.

      • CH

        Even generously accepting Swanson at the rc post ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ ) – it is about 0.1 degrees C/decade between 1979 and 1997 – i.e. excluding ENSO dragon-kings.

        More balls. Start by inserting a false premise and you will get the wrong answer. Warming since the mid-1970s is about 0.5C as everybody except you and the warming deniers agree. You really don’t want to get lumped in with those loons, so I’d have a rapid re-think if I were you.

        The claim that ENSO is responsible for 40% of warming over this period is junk. See F&S11 for some rigorous analysis instead of blog pseudo-science.

        I keep asking your for references supporting this rubbish. Now where are they?

        What? Sorry, speak up… There aren’t any, you say? Nothing at all? Absolutely everybody disagrees with you? That must be devastating.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        •Thompson, D.W.J, J.M. Wallace, P.D. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy, 2009: Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights. J. Climate, 22, 6120-6141.

        Swanson himself in that post describes a rationale for excluding ENSO at 1976/7 and 1998/01. These are large extreme events associated with tipping points in the climate – dragon-kings. ‘Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño.’ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

        ‘We develop the concept of “dragon-kings” corresponding to meaningful outliers, which are found to coexist with power laws in the distributions of event sizes under a broad range of conditions in a large variety of systems. These dragon-kings reveal the existence of mechanisms of self-organization that are not apparent otherwise from the distribution of their smaller siblings. We present a generic phase diagram to explain the generation of dragon-kings and document their presence in six different examples (distribution of city sizes, distribution of acoustic emissions associated with material failure, distribution of velocity increments in hydrodynamic turbulence, distribution of financial drawdowns, distribution of the energies of epileptic seizures in humans and in model animals, distribution of the earthquake energies). We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. ‘ http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

        The data comes from Wong et al 2006.

        Here is some from the ISCCP-FD.

        ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

        ‘Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”’ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703 You might be able to tell just by looking at a WFT graph – but NASA doesn’t seem to be able to.

        Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.

        The data discussed by Wong was corrected for edition 3 in 2006 – in the paper I referenced. We have 0.7 W/m2 cooling in the IR, 2.1 W/m2 waring in the SW for a net 1.4 W/m2 warming between the 80’s and 90’s.

        Don’t like the numbers? See if I give a rat’s arse. You don’t really have a lot do you? A wft graph that tells you something different to what mainstream science – as in the NASA article – knows, a quote from Wong et al about interannualar variability – we know this involves ENSO and clouds because ENSO is the biggest source of interannular climate variation and clouds and ENSO have been observed by Dessler and others – and a phrase from S&T09 about dynamaical complexity – about which you still don’t have a clue.

        All this noise about TOA is just misdirection. What Wong et al. (2005) really says is that OHC is increasing as expected under sustained anthropogenic forcing (see also Levitus et al. 2012).

        TOA? Top of atmosphere? The radiant imbalance here determines warming or cooling. The imbalance here is all SW as Takmeng Wong knows more than anyone.

        You my friend are a crude and noxious troll with an unfortunate line in abuse and very little understanding at all. I suggest you quit while you are comprehensively before you make a bigger fool of yoursef. If that is possible.

      • CH

        Junk response. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of repeat waffle. You have dodged every question I pose above and attempted to hide behind a screed:

        – No acknowledgement that Wong et al. (2006) doesn’t say what you claim
        – Nothing coherent about the clearly divergent PDO and GAT since the early 1980s
        – Reapeat of misrepresentation Tsonis etc
        – No references supporting the nonsense claim that 40% of warming since the 1980s was caused by ENSO – just a smokescreen of mostly repetitive verbiage (S&T are probably wrong and don’t support this figure anyway; Thompson et al. 2009 doesn’t support this figure etc)
        – No acknowledgement (still!) that you lied about S&T by claiming that they DIDN’T predict warming…

        There’s nothing there except misdirection and evasions.

        You my friend are a crude and noxious troll with an unfortunate line in abuse and very little understanding at all. I suggest you quit while you are comprehensively before you make a bigger fool of yoursef. If that is possible.

        You my friend are a blustering misrepresenter who has run out of road.

        Now, about that graph. Denial is of no interest here. I want you to explain how the clear divergence between the PDO and GAT since the early 1980s squares with your claim that warming since the 1980s is caused by the PDO.

        Then you can explain why Wong06 attributes the long-term increase in OHC to anthropogenic forcing – not the PDO as you keep insisting.

        Your sources never support your claims.

        But first, let’s hear your explanation as to how the PDO could possibly be responsible for the increase in GAT since the 1980s. Please remember that the NASA stuff DOES NOT state that the PDO was responsible for modern warming. I have read it.

        Have another look at the graph.

        :-)

      • Oh Girma please. Detrending the temperature time series does rather hide the divergence that this is all about.

        Please don’t try to lie to me with graphs. I had rather hoped that by now you would have grasped that it doesn’t work.

      • Detrending just removes the linear warming and leaves the cyclic (PDO) warming.

        Because of cool phase of PDO, no further warming for two decades!

        IPCC’s “0.2 deg C warming for the next two decades” is wrong because of the existence of the multi-decadal oscillation called the PDO. The observed warming of 0.2 deg C per decade for the period 1970-2000 was during the warming phase of the PDO, and as the PDO has moved to its cool phase, there will be little warming in the next two decades because the long-term warming (which I detrended) and the cool phase of the PDO cancel each other out.

      • Detrending just removes the linear warming and leaves the cyclic (PDO) warming.

        Your messy graphs conceal. This is a far clearer visualisation of the breakdown in correlation between PDO phase and GAT since the early 1980s. It is very clear that the PDO is *not* driving the increase in GAT over this period.

        Possibly the PDO might offset the effects of GHG forcing for a decade or so, but this will be nothing more than a hiatus. As the atmospheric fraction of GHGs increases over the C21st, so will the forcing. The offsetting effects of natural variability will be increasingly over-printed.

        All you are doing is obfuscating, both with words and pictures. Quite a trick!

        Here’s how it should be done. Note the clarity. Compare and contrast with the confusing mess you present.

      • With your graph, one can not see the correlation between PDO and GMST. In order to do that, the better graph is the following:

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/compress:12/detrend:0.8/offset:0.615/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/compress:12/scale:0.2/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.000001

      • I disagree. That’s another confusing mess that *hides the decline* – in the PDO. This is a waste of time.

      • At Girma’s prompting, I have tried to produce a PDO vs GAT comparison of even greater clarity using 5 year means. Here it is.

        I’m sure we’ll all agree that this makes it not just difficult but *impossible* to claim that the PDO drove the increase in GAT since the early 1980s.

      • With OHC progressively increasing, the talk of a significant part of the warming trend being driven by El Nino makes little sense to me.

      • JCH

        Indeed so. But those who try and marginalise or deny the effects of GHG forcing are themselves forced into trying to explain climate dynamics and modern warming as the operation of a perpetual motion machine. Energy from nowhere. Which is or should be a huge hint that they have strayed far from the path of reason.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I give you Thompson 2009 – who subtracts ENSO leaving about 0.115 degrees C/decade warming. I quote Swanson who does the same thing on realclimate by calculating the trend excluding the extreme ENSO events in 1976/77 and 1998/01. These are obviously ENSO and not global warming. I can say nothing more about this. You either accept that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation added to warming between 1976 and 1998 – or you don’t.

        ‘The changes in SW radiation measured by ERBS Edition 3 Rev 1 are larger than the clear-sky flux changes due to humidity variations (Wong et al., 2000) or anthropogenic radiative forcing (see Chapter 2). If correct, the large decrease in reflected SW radiation with little change in outgoing LW radiation implies a reduction in tropical low cloud cover over this period. However, specific information on cloud radiative forcing is not available from ERBS after 1989 and, as noted in Section 3.4.3, surface data sets suggest an increase in low cloud cover over this period.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

        An increase in cloud in very limited observations over the period in the US is to be expected from more frequent El Nino. From a later study – Clement et al 2009 – the changes in low level marine stratocumulus happen in the Pacific – negatively correlated to sea surface temperature.

        The Wong et al 2006 numbers are in black and white – 0.7 W/m2 cooling in the IR and 2.1 W/m2 warming in the SW between the 80′s and 90′s. This is not subject to interpretation – this is data.

        Your wtf graph merely shows a positive PDO and rising temperatures in the period to 1998 and a turnaround in the PDO and surface temperature since. The PDO is an element of the IPO. Again – the IPO augments and hides warming in the recent record. You can either believe NASA or not – I don’t give a rat’s arse. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        ‘Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”’

        To deny this based on eyeballing a wtf graph of PDO and GST is absurd in the extreme. It argues a willingness to reach judgment on the most facile evidence imaginable.

        Clouds change – and a lot of that is associated with the IPO. In CERES/MODIS we have this.

        Here again is Wong et al 2006 Fig 7 – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Wong2006figure7.gif

        It shows OHC and ERBS net. We know why the oceans warmed and it is related to the cloud and the IPO. From the numbers – very little of this warming was AGW. You might argue about the quality of the data – well you can’t clueless as you are. Or base an argument on surface cloud observations – as the IPCC did – but at the end of the day it is not argument that counts but empirical data. The most important data is ocean heat content, tropospheric temperature and TOA radiative flux.

      • Chief

        Here is a published paper that supports your position that the observed warming of 0.2 deg C per decade for the period 1970-2000 includes a warming trend due to the warm phase of the PDO of about 0.12 deg C per decade.

        …we showed that the rapidity of the warming in the late twentieth century was a result of concurrence of a secular warming trend and the warming phase of a multidecadal (~65-year period) oscillatory variation and we estimated the contribution of the former to be about 0.08 deg C per decade since ~1980.

        Wu et al.
        On the time-varying trend in global-mean surface temperature

        http://bit.ly/PDBWyZ

      • CH

        A Gish Gallop. Better quality than the usual dross, but a GG all the same.

        Let’s pull it to bits.

        First, the all-important setup. You are doing a Girma.

        I give you Thompson 2009 – who subtracts ENSO leaving about 0.115 degrees C/decade warming.

        Yes – ~0.12C/decade from 1950, *not* from ~1975.

        I quote Swanson who does the same thing on realclimate by calculating the trend excluding the extreme ENSO events in 1976/77 and 1998/01.

        And Swanson may very well be wrong claiming that the 1998 EN is responsible for the hypothesised ‘climate shift’ and ‘radiative overshoot’ he is proposing. And despite his disclaimer, he *is* cherry picking his end point by excluding data post-1997. For a more grounded approach to quantifying and removing the effects of ENSO from multiple temperature records, see Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). F&R11 find a surface temperature decadal trend of between 0.17C – 0.175C for the period 1979 – 2010.

        Tricks here:

        – conflation of trend from 1950 with recent warming
        – insinuation that the ‘real’ GW signal is much lower than thought
        – insinuation that this means less warming in future

        Of course Swanson is on record saying *exactly the opposite*. From S&T09:

        If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].

        – you have lied about this doggedly for over a week now so it must really matter. The fact is that S&T contradict Girma. They contradict you. Even if we accept all this stuff about ENSO dragon-kings and shifts and pauses, the real anthropogenic signal includes them all. So what if we advance stepwise if the steps get taller, the slope steeper and the pauses shorter?

        Since it is impossible for a sensitive climate system to cool significantly or for long under a constantly increasing forcing from GHGs, the underlying trend will steepen to as the century progresses. The offsetting effects of natural variability will increasingly be over-printed. None of what you argue or imply will make any difference to the centennial scale response.

        Now, you have consistently refused to answer the only question that matters:

        Do you think that warming will exceed 2C this century?

        S&T clearly consider this a real possibility, as do all mainstream researchers. So, where do you stand?

        ***

      • bloody html tags:

        – you have lied about this doggedly for over a week now so it must really matter. The fact is that S&T contradict Girma. They contradict you. Even if we accept all this stuff about ENSO dragon-kings and shifts and pauses, the real anthropogenic signal includes them all. So what if we advance stepwise if the steps get steeper and the pauses shorter?

        Since it is impossible for a sensitive climate system to cool significantly or for long under a constantly increasing forcing from GHGs, the underlying trend will steepen to as the century progresses. The offsetting effects of natural variablity will increasingly be over-printed. None of what you argue or imply will make any diffence to the centennial scale response.

        Now, you have consistently refused to answer the only question that matters:

        Do you think that warming will exceed 2C this century?

        S&T clearly consider this a real possibility, as do all mainstream researchers. So, where do you stand?

        ***

      • Next, the systematic over-statement of the influence of natural variability on recent temperature change.

        I can say nothing more about this. You either accept that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation added to warming between 1976 and 1998 – or you don’t.

        A little, certainly, but ENSO and/or the PDO responsible for 40% of warming over this period? No, absolutely not. And I’m still waiting for a substantive supporting reference. Since in fact there is *no such* substantive supporting evidence, I say this is a junk claim. And obvious junk at that.

        Your wtf graph merely shows a positive PDO and rising temperatures in the period to 1998 and a turnaround in the PDO and surface temperature since.

        Misrepresentation so blatant that the only sane response is to laugh. You have *still* not explained why a correlation apparently held since 1900 breaks down completely during the early 1980s. Why has the correlation you propose between (IPO/PDO/ENSO and) cloud formation and GAT collapsed? Perhaps all the waving hands blew the clouds away?

        Your well-thumbed NASA quote doesn’t support the 40% claim or anything like it. Instead of your gargantuan but unitless over-inflation of Josh Willis, let’s try and quantify this. We’ve already got F&R11 on the table completely countering the 40% figure for ENSO. Let’s turn to Huyber & Knutti (2011):

        We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.

        And:

        Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (+/-12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (+/-12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (-10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings.

        40% is a junk claim.

        ***

      • [iii]

        Next, to the misrepresentation of Wong et al. (2006).

        Let’s start by nailing the obvious:

        This is not subject to interpretation – this is data.

        No, it’s old, unreliable satellite data subject to a reanalysis. It is tentative at best. Take a lead from your current favourite IPCC quote from AR4 3.4.4.1 – be circumspect in the extreme instead of rabidly dogmatic.

        Next, you make a very strong claim which proves to be *totally unsupported* by W06. You say:

        We know why the oceans warmed and it is related to the cloud and the IPO.

        Your ‘evidence’ is the close match between ocean heat storage and the ERBS3/CERES2 TOA flux reconstructions for the short period 1993 – 2003. W06 isn’t a model of clear writing, but if we look carefully, we find this:

        On a global annual scale, the change in TOA net radiation and ocean heat storage should be in phase and of the same magnitude. This is due to the fact that all other forms of heat storage in the earth system are factors of 10 or more smaller than ocean heat storage
        (Levitus et al. 2001).

        You claim to be an intelligent chap. Read the words and look at the pretty picture you are so fond of linking again.

        Now, it’s time to look *again* at what W06 says about *OHC*. Oddly, although I’ve quoted this before, you have ignored it:

        The ocean heat storage and net radiation data, while showing relatively large interannual variability, are consistent with heating predicted from current state of-the-art coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models (Barnett et al. 2001) [1]. The anticipated change in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the next few decades is estimated as ~0.6 W m^2 (decade)^1 (Houghton et al. 2001). The interannual variability in net radiation is of similar magnitude (+/-0.7 W m2). Note that the ocean heat storage dataset for single annual-mean values has a sampling uncertainty of 0.4 W m^2 (1σ) so that the larger range of variation in ocean heat storage is more likely due to its larger sampling noise. The radiation dataset has a larger mean bias uncertainty (absolute calibration) but smaller sampling error than the ocean heat storage data. The 10-yr average of ocean heat storage is about 0.6 W m^2, similar to the levels predicted by current climate models for anthropogenic global warming scenarios (Houghton et al. 2001; Hansen et al. 2005).

        [1] Barnett, T. P., D. W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s ocean. Science, 292, 270–274.

        The central issue here is not interannual variability in OHC/cloudiness/TOA flux. Interannual variability is a RED HERRING. What matters is the emerging effect of GHG forcing as indicated by long term increase in OHC. This is exhaustively detailed in Levitus et al. (2012) which you urgently need to read.

        ***

      • [iv]

        From the numbers – very little of this warming was AGW [1]. You might argue about the quality of the data – well you can’t clueless as you are [2]. Or base an argument on surface cloud observations – as the IPCC did – but at the end of the day it is not argument that counts but empirical data [3]. The most important data is ocean heat content, tropospheric temperature and TOA radiative flux [4].

        [1] What numbers? The only ones I can find references for flatly contradict this claim.

        [2] I might indeed question the quality of the TOA data, but it’s hardly necessary. Increasing OHC since the mid-C20th requires an explanation and the only one on the table is GHG forcing.

        [3] See OHC.

        [4] See OHC and add the following words to your sentence: ‘long term’. Interannual variability is a RED HERRING.

        Looking back at the GAT trend from 1950 is a RED HERRING too. Nonsense claims about the size of the contribution of natural variability to late C20th warming add nothing of substance.

        Above all, whenever I have taken the trouble to look, I have found that none of your sources actually support your claims. You either exaggerate or actively misrepresent.

        It’s a Gish Gallop from start to finish.

        ***

      • The lack of coherent threading is a PITA.

        This is [i]

        This is [ii]

        [iii] and [iv] follow on.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Have you figured out the numbers and decided they don’t matter?

        The numbers I keep repeating are 0.7 W/m2 cooling in the IR and 2.1 W/m2 warming in the SW for ERBS between 1984 and the late 1990′s a determined in the Wong et al 2006 study and as reported in the AR4.

        Accounting for the large part of warming since 1976? Backed up by ICOADS and the NASA/GISS ISCCP-FD data?

        It is not warming for a decade or three more at least. Beyond that it is unpredictable both becuse the models are chaotic and climate is chaotic.

        I know having consulted Tim Palmer’s Lorenzian Meteorological Office

        ‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

        You are an absolute maniac of whom I have definitely had enough.

      • You are a serial misrepresenter who has not made his case and always dodges the hard questions.

      • This is [i]

        This is [ii]

        [iii] and [iv] follow on.

      • BBD | November 22, 2012 at 5:12 am | Reply
        You are a serial misrepresenter who has not made his case and always dodges the hard questions.

        Probably inadvertent self-analysis.

      • BBD

        What is your definition of a ‘climate shift’ in terms of how long it needs to be sustained at the new higher or lower level (a decade?) and how much must the temperature suddenly shift up or down to qualify -a tenth of a degree, centigrade? A quarter, a half, a full degree?
        tonyb

      • tony

        Please, read the recent responses to CH. Start at [i] which addresses your question, or rather, demonstrates that ‘climate shifts’ – if they exist at all – will not affect the centennial climate response to increasing GHG forcing. Do note that Swanson & Tsonis (2009) explicitly reject CH’s crap about absolute unpredictability.

        CH doesn’t understand the point that Swanson makes explicit in his RC piece here. To avoid making the same awful mess that CH has done, I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing, carefully.

        Swanson:

        It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no-holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century. Both certainly played a role in the evolution of the temperature trajectory over the 20th century, and significant issues remain to be resolved about their relative importance. However, the salient point, one that is oftentimes not clear in arguments about variability in the climate system, is that all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.

        A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds. It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause.

        [emphasis as original]

        And:

        The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

        [emphasis as original]

        And:

        We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

        [emphasis added to aid comprehension]

        What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

        [all emphasis added except ‘VERY LITTLE’ as original]

        This brings us to the conclusion from S&T09:

        If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].

      • BBD

        Thanks for that. I will go and make a coffee and read through it all. I suspect I will need a sandwich as well

        Tonyb

      • Chief Hydrologist

        However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

      • Just go back and read Swanson again until you understand what he is saying. It’s clear that he cautions that it might be worse than we think ;-)

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        This clear accumulation of heat in the oceans down to 2000m since 2005 (almost doubling since then) is hard for the denialists to reconcile:

        http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv

        But they’ll try to say it has to big of error to know for certain, which is complete bunk.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Yep – ARGO is showing warming to 2000m – http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

        It is all explainable by CERES – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

        An energy imablance caused by CO2 obviously.

        The previous EBBS and ISCCP-FD show cloud cover change as the big factor. But that’s obviously not anywhere near as accurate as XBT to 2000m.

      • R gates

        The denialists would not attempt to ‘reconcile’ the random ocean data you posted, but merely point out that if we tried to claim any sort of definitive trend from only 2005 to prove one of OUR points you would pour cold water all over it. Nice try.

        Tonyb

      • Tony

        The denialists would not attempt to ‘reconcile’ the random ocean data you posted, but merely point out that if we tried to claim any sort of definitive trend from only 2005 to prove one of OUR points you would pour cold water all over it. Nice try.

        Why do you say the OHC data are ‘random’?

        Where is there any claim of a definitive trend ‘from only 2005’? All OHC reconstructions show the upward trend since the mid-C20th. Or do you have a reference that I have missed? Please post a link.

        The reference study is Levitus et al. (2012) which is the source for the NODC graph R.Gates linked.

        Have a look at figures S1 (OHC 0-2000m) and S2 (OHC 0-700m) in the supplementary information at the end of Levitus12.

        Why do you say the OHC data are ‘random’?

        More to the point, how do we account for this accumulation of energy in the climate system? The only known forcing change that could explain the increase in OHC since the mid-C20th irrespective of the reconstruction you use* is increasing GHG forcing.

        How could the PDO be responsible for increasing OHC since the *mid-C20th*.

      • BBD

        I used the word ‘random’ in this context to mean unconnnected to anything else. It was not a ‘graph’ but a set of figures out of context to any cited study.

        There is a background to this in as much I was an expert reviewer on the draft of AR5 and took especial interest in the chapter on oceanic temperature changes, with particular reference to abyssal cooling. The IPCC said there was research that demonstrated warmimg that deep, but when directly asked three times they were unable or unwilling to supply it..

        In that broader context the main point remains that we have extremely imperfect records of deep water cooling (anything below SST, which are in theseves flawed) and to cite such short term data as the amended argo records is mildly interesting but hardly definitive.

        tonyb

      • Tony

        1/ R. Gates’ numbers were not ‘random'; he was effectively quoting from Levitus et al. (2012). I really do think you should read this if you are interested in this topic, then you won’t make mistakes like not recognising the best estimates for OHC increase. Quibbling over detail aside, all OHC reconstructions show the strong upward trend since the mid-C20th. Or do you have a reference that I have missed? Please post a link. Also, simply denying all pre-ARGO data is not an adequate response.

        2/ If you question the OHC data you have to explain the >30% of SLR attributed to thermal expansion. How do you get around that without either invoking much more melt (problematic) or resorting to non-standard physics? As with OHC, simply denying measurements is not an adequate response. Claiming greater uncertainty that exists is not an adequate response.

        3/ How do we *account* for this accumulation of energy in the climate system? The only known forcing change that could explain the increase in OHC since the mid-C20th, irrespective of the reconstruction you use, is increasing GHG forcing.

        4/ This is mystifying:

        The IPCC said there was research that demonstrated warmimg that deep, but when directly asked three times they were unable or unwilling to supply it.

        See Purkey & Johnson (2010). That’s a paywalled abstract but just for you, here’s the full paper.
        Also Song & Colberg (2011). Again, paywalled, but full paper here. Don’t say I never do anything for you ;-)

        5/ You were a reviewer, not an expert reviewer. Anyone can do this as we both know perfectly well. Let’s not get carried away ;-)

      • Aren’t HTML tags the pain in the **** of the world?

      • BBD

        ‘Effectively quoting from Levitus?’ Its normal to provide a link to a paper rather than merely a column of figures. n that context R Gates figures were ‘random’ that is to say they were unsupported and unhelpful, which is unlike him, hence my tongue in cheek comment.

        As regards the rest of your post I think you are over analysing a very brief response to someone I have jousted with quite affably a number of times.

        My main interest that day was in the separate correspondance we had regarding ‘climate shifts’ whereby you cited a number of posts with CH that I read with interest.
        .
        If you have any proper official definition of what constitutes a ‘climate shift’ or papers relating to the subject I would be pleased to see them.

        Tonyb

      • Tony

        My apologies for the confusion. I had the wrong R. Gates comment in mind. I apologise for the unwarranted snark.

        It’s possible that he meant to link to the NODC OHC graphs page.

        If you have any proper official definition of what constitutes a ‘climate shift’ or papers relating to the subject I would be pleased to see them.

        I don’t think there’s any formalised quantification of a ‘climate shift’ and it means different things in different contexts. There’s a stack of studies looking at the Younger Dryas event, but this is of little or no relevance to Swanson & Tsonis 09 which examines modern climate dynamics.

        There’s lots more about the paleoclimate (MIS 3) Bond Cycle dealing with the cyclical abrupt cooling of the N. Atlantic during the last glacial, but again, these are of no real relevance to modern climate ‘shifts’ of the sort hypothesised by S&T.

        If you are interested in abrupt paleoclimate change I can post some links.

      • BBD

        Thanks for correcting your snark, I can see what happened, no problem

        As regards climatic shifts, its interesting to follow them through the instrumental record plus the 100 years of reconstruction to 1538, as I have attempted to do for a possible article. .

        There is no doubt tat a genuine climatic shift woud be noticed because people were often living on the edge of existence prior to the modern age. Any downturn or upturn in temperatures would mean the difference between feast and famine.

        Bearing in mind that the 0.75 degree centigrade increase since pre industrial times is considered significant i reckoned that a half degree shift that lasted at least a decade at the new raised or lowered level would be a reasonable benchmark.I can count around ten of those shifts over the last 450 years or so. It would be good to see some sort of official definition however so I can compare like for like.

        Abrupt paleoclimate change links would be useful in order to see the broader context.
        tonyb

      • Tony

        See Clement & Peterson (2008) for a good review of the hypothesised causes of abrupt climate change during the last glacial (Dansgaard-Oeschger events comprising MIS 3 Bond Cycle; Younger Dryas).

        The original papers proposing the ‘binge-purge’ hypothesis for Dansgaard-Oeschger events are MacAyeal (1993a,b); Alley & MacAyeal (1994); Payne & Donglemans (1997). Cyclical collapse caused by ice sheet dynamics (thickening ice sheet causes basal warming, which causes basal melt and lubrication and… whoopsie!).

        Carl Wunsch disagrees and thinks it’s wind fields wot dunnit – see Wunsch (2006).

        The argument over the routing of meltwater outbreaks from Lake Agassiz that triggered the Younger Dryas continues. The latest thrilling instalment is Condron & Winsor (2012) which argues for an injection of freshwater into the Arctic Ocean via the Mackenzie Valley.

        The state-of-the-art in understanding the last deglacial as a whole is currently Shakun et al. (2012) which is fascinating and well worth a read.

      • Sorry – missed the link for Wunsch (2006)

        Anyway, that’s enough to be getting on with ;-) I hope you find some of this interesting, if not directly useful.

      • BBD

        Thanks for your help.
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        BBD & Tony,

        My link to the 2005-2012 OHC data was a broken link meant to be a response to Wagathon’s incessant prattling on about the “globe” warming for the past decade. The term globe is nonspecific and not too scientific, and probably best used for an elementary science or geography class such as “show me on the globe where Mexico is…”

        When talking about the Earth warming or changes in Earth’s energy system content, probably best to be specific. Yes, the temperture of the near surface troposphere has been flat for a decade or so, albeit 2010, by some accounts nudged out 1998 as the warmest. But the real point of bringing the OHC data in is to show that the biggest measurement of non-tectonic heat, the ocean, has not shown any such slowdown and thus, as an energy system, the trend is clealy toward accumulate, and given that the oceans have a greater heat capacity and higher thermal inertia they are a better overall stable and long term indicator of what is going on with Earth’s energy system.

      • R Gates

        It was a less than helpful link which was unlike you, hence my tongue in cheek reply.
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Got it Tony, thanks.

      • @Gates
        Yes, the temperture of the near surface troposphere has been flat for a decade or so … But the … OHC data … has not shown any such slowdown

        Given that the mechanism by which GHGs are thought to warm the ocean (and land), is that they slow the cooling of oceans into the atmosphere, this must mean the OHC rise is due to factors other than the greenhouse effect. Any suggestions?

      • To hopefully clarify :
        for greenhouse warming of the atmosphere to be the means whereby the oceans are warming, the atmosphere must itself be warming, since it is only such a reduced temperature gradient that could cause the cooling of the oceans to the atmosphere to slow down.

        But the atmosphere is not warming anymore. So whatever warming may be happening in the oceans now, cannot be being caused by the greenhouse effect.

      • Steady Eddie

        But the atmosphere is not warming anymore. So whatever warming may be happening in the oceans now, cannot be being caused by the greenhouse effect.

        You might find this interesting, Eddie… Your perspective on the problem is incomplete ;-)

      • But the atmosphere is not warming anymore. So whatever warming may be happening in the oceans now, cannot be being caused by the greenhouse effect.

        BBD, Your link says
        (a) There is still a measured TOA flux imbalance, so naturally we expect this extra heat to up somewhere
        (b) Models have it showing up deep in the oceans.

        Only mentions models though, no actual evidence. As to why models show this, says “may” be like La Nina.

        So doesn’t seem to contradict my above point. Indeed itself refers to a “a hiatus in global warming” – which surely means a greenhouse effect of zero ?

        So – there is a radiative imbalance and ocean warming, but no atmospheric warming. The cause of the radiative imbalance must therefore be something other than the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.

      • I do not fully understand what you are saying. You seem to think for OHC to increase, the GHE has to also warm the surface air temperature. I do not think that is true. With a flattish SAT, I think OHC can continue to up. Why? Because that is how the enhanced GHE works.

      • @JCH
        You seem to think for OHC to increase, the GHE has to also warm the surface air temperature.

        Yes. This follows from the standard account that OCH rises are due to a reduced ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient.

        With a flattish SAT, I think OHC can continue to up. Why? Because that is how the enhanced GHE works.

        Enhanced? To what does this refer? And how does it work?
        (Backradiation?)

      • Yes. This follows from the standard account that OCH rises are due to a reduced ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient. …

        That is not how I understand it. As I understand it the gradient that is additionally warmed by the enhanced GHE is within the ocean skin layer.

      • for greenhouse warming of the atmosphere to be the means whereby the oceans are warming, the atmosphere must itself be warming, since it is only such a reduced temperature gradient that could cause the cooling of the oceans to the atmosphere to slow down.

        But the atmosphere is not warming anymore. So whatever warming may be happening in the oceans now, cannot be being caused by the greenhouse effect.

        WebHubTelescope | November 25, 2012 at 2:24 am | Reply
        Ever solved a partial differential equation?

        Why don’t you just walk us through your high-level argument and implications?

      • Ever solved a partial differential equation?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Many times – so what? Ever made a substantive comment here?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | November 24, 2012 at 11:32 am
        ” incessant prattling on about the “globe” warming for the past decade. The term globe is nonspecific and not too scientific, and probably best used for an elementary science or geography class such as “show me on the globe where Mexico is…”

        So “Global Warming” is no good either then? What should we say instead?

      • R Gates – the point about the oceans being a much bigger heat sink, and hence OHC being a better indication of what is happening than surface temperatures.

        But is the ocean temperature data of comparable quality to surface temperature data ?

      • BBD > OHC reconstructions show the strong upward trend since the mid-C20th. … Also, simply denying all pre-ARGO data … If you question the OHC data you have to explain the >30% of SLR attributed to thermal expansion. 30 % figure?

        > Claiming greater uncertainty that exists is not an adequate response. How do we *account* for this accumulation of energy in the climate system? The only known forcing change that could explain the increase in OHC since the mid-C20th, irrespective of the reconstruction you use, is increasing GHG forcing. <

        Well first we need to establish that there is indeed such an accumulation.
        And how reliable and complete are 'known' forcings though, given our inability to predict say the current hiatus ? (Perhaps the hiatus is correlated with the OHC and SLR data though?)

      • ( Yes, tags! Judith – can’t you get wysiwyg enabled ? )

        BBD > OHC reconstructions show the strong upward trend since the mid-C20th. … Also, simply denying all pre-ARGO data …>

        ‘Denying’ it? Or merely questioning its reliability ?

        > If you question the OHC data you have to explain the >30% of SLR attributed to thermal expansion. >

        Are mid-C20 OHC SLR & much different to what came before?
        And what is the basis of the > 30 % figure?

        > Claiming greater uncertainty that exists is not an adequate response. >

        Likewise claiming greater certainty.

        > How do we *account* for this accumulation of energy in the climate system? The only known forcing change that could explain the increase in OHC since the mid-C20th, irrespective of the reconstruction you use, is increasing GHG forcing. >

        Well first we need to establish that there is indeed such an accumulation.
        And how reliable and complete are ‘known’ forcings though, given our inability to predict say the current hiatus ? (Perhaps the hiatus is correlated with the OHC and SLR data though?)

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I will leave a last quote.

        ‘Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.

        So how much will uncertainties in climate-change predictions of the large-scale reduce if models are run at 20, 2 or even 0.2 km resolution rather than say 100 km resolution? Equally, we may ask whether there is a certain resolution (e.g. 20 km), where it might be feasible to represent small-scale motions using stochastic equations, rather than trying to resolve them? These questions urgently need answering as the pressures grow on the climate science community to estimate, and if possible reduce uncertainties, and provide more reliable and confident predictions of regional climate change, hazardous weather and extremes.

        Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.

        Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

        It is still cooling for a decade or three more – because we are in a cool Pacific mode. So sit on that and spin.

      • A thousand year simulation of ENSO oscillating without trend. Fancy that. Perhaps you haven’t understood this paper either.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ENSO is alternation of sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific – so there can be no trend. Just like the PDO. What changes is the frequency and intensity of ENSO events.

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

        And it was 2000 years. Amazing how you can focus on the least important aspect and get that wrong. Admit it – you don’t have any natural science training do you Mr Jones. Certainly not oceanography. You just interpret words and not ideas to suit a space cadet agenda?

        I would have thought that Slingo and Palmer speak for themselves – that’s why I quoted it. By all means read the paper – but please don’t pester me with idiosyncratic interpetations of the entrails.

      • Oh mea maxima culpa. Two thousand years of trendless oscillation. As if it made the slightest difference. You still don’t understand that ENSO is a forced response, not a climate driver, or if you do grasp this, you cannot seem to understand that it will be influenced by anthropogenic forcing.

        Once again, you force me to repeat myself:

        Even if we accept all this stuff about ENSO dragon-kings and shifts and pauses, the real anthropogenic signal includes them all. So what if we advance stepwise if the steps get taller, the slope steeper and the pauses shorter?

        It is very obvious that you *still* have no idea what Swanson is talking about. Go back and read it again.

        You still use abuse to distract from the weakness of your arguments. You are still locked in denial and still engaged in serial misrepresentation. And you still haven’t made your case. Nor will you ever succeed because you don’t have one.

      • BBD

        I have read and bookmarked the information you provided, thank you. Yes, I think there are periods when there has been a ‘climate shift’ of apparent significance as regards the increase/decrease in temperature and the length of time it lasted.

        However, my definition of a climate shift-around half a degree centigrade such as in 1998-might be different to an official definition, which seems hard to come by.

        Using my definition of half a degree- and one that elevates or reduces that temperature and maintains it for a period of at least ten years- there appear to have been at least ten climate shifts-up and down- over the past 3 centuries of instrumental records. 1998 is by no means the largest, so I am unclear as to why it should be apportioned to enhanced co2 whilst the others are natural variability.

        I am trying to trace some scientific papers that give some definitive definitions of what constitutes climate shift.
        tonyb

      • The shifts are essentially natural. That includes 1998-2001.

      • Girma likes to play with derivatives, detrended curves etc. to hide the effect that should be the one of interest, i.e. the warming or the increase in CO2 concentration. Detrended time series are fine for looking at short term variability but a detrended curve cannot tell about the trend.

        Even with this trick his graph on the relationship between GST and PDO index tells actually that the correlation could be seen only before 1970, i.e. before the warming by CO2 started to be visible. AGW became so strong that it reversed the effect.

        In this case Girma provided evidence against his own ideas.

      • BBD “This is a waste of time”

        This is clearly a big problem for you here, BBD, and will only exacerbate your condition. Do the sensible thing and save yourself.

      • Doug Cotton | As mentioned somewhere above, I suggest people read this post on WUWT and this article of which I was co-author..

        Seriously, dude, first give us a clear summary so we can decide whether to invest the time.

      • CH

        The evidence suggests that all recent warming was caused by a warm mode of the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation. Whatever effect there might be in greenhouse gases is obscured by natural variation.

        Oh what balls. There’s the underlying anthropogenic signal. All the crack-pottery and arrogant nonsense in the world doesn’t invalidate the physics of radiative transfer.

        Pay attention for once: the PDO is an OSCILLATION. Oscillations do not cause massive energy accumulation in the climate system. The key example being the increase in OHC since the mid-C20th. Don’t bother with any more denialist clap-trap about unreliable this and that. I’m not interested in unpublished rubbish. Neither should you be if you are such a champion of science, but then you aren’t really, are you? You are just another crank who is obliged to misrepresent what is known in order to peddle falsehoods.

        Anyway, where’s this reference supporting manacker’s tosh about ENSO contributing 40% to warming since ~1980? I’m still waiting for an answer on that.

        Or do you have nothing – just like Max?

      • It really is trivial to demonstrate that GAT is not being driven by the PDO. All you have to do is look…

        This is terminally tedious.

      • Max

        Hey! Stupid!

        Stop repeating your debunked, unsupported rubbish and read this.

        Just how impenetrably dense are you?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Oh – I just noticed the latest tirade. The warming is nowhere near 0.17 or 0.2 degrees/decade. Not even in the skepticalscience animation. Even generously accepting Swanson at the rc post ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ ) – it is about 0.1 degrees C/decade between 1979 and 1997 – i.e. excluding ENSO dragon-kings.

        Even if we assume – as Swanson suggests – that all this is global warming due to greenhouse gases it is still about 58.88235% of the total warming in the period. So 41.12…% is ENSO.

        The assumption that it is all greenhouse gases between 1979 and 1997 seems at least questionable given the satellite TOA flux data.

        If he had bothered to read the Wong et al 2006 reference – and it takes a little more than 2 minutes – he would have found this – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Wong2006figure7.gif

        Where we have overlapping ocean heat content and ERBE data – it shows the ocean heat content responding to the reduction in cloud. This of course makes perfect sense and shows the consistency with the satellite record – as noted in the IPCC link I provided. The same thing is apparent in the CERES?ARGO overlapping period.

        The proposition is that this Pacific mode has both augmented and hidden any global warming signal from greenhouse gses. This is quite obvious, has been for a decade and is the subject of the NASA article I keep linking to.

        For the future the cool mode will likely persist for another decade or three. Beyond that there can be no expectation that we will return to a warmer mode. Given that we are at a 1000 El Nino peak – the expectations should include progression to a cooler and more cooler phase.

        Even if it did return to a warmer phase – it is only about 0.1 degrees C/decade. What would that matter for another 50 years at least? We will still be well within the mooted dangerous warming.

        But it is not as simple as that.

        It is no wonder that bllah blah duh and webby the attack smurf get on so well – they are both comprehensively idiots.

      • Chief : … satellite TOA flux data.

        What is it telling us exactly ?

      • “Handel | November 22, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Reply
        Chief : … satellite TOA flux data.
        What is it telling us exactly ?”

        It is telling us how the Gish Gallup works.
        Just spew a bunch of word salad and link to complex-looking but arbitrary graphs, and lots of gullible rubes get taken in.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-23.html

        See IPCC AR4 s 3.4.4.1

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’

        In the ERBS data it shows cooling in the IR of 0.7W/m2 and warming in the SW of 2.1W/m2. It shows a reduction in cloud cover. Less reflected SW and more emitted LW. The NASA/GISS ISCCP-FD record is similar.

        ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

        Here’s the CERES data -ttp://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif

        The colours are different instruments. The trends are in anomalies – changes in radiative flux at top of atmpsphere. An upward trend in outgoing long wave (OLR) and SW is more energy leaving the planet (cooling) and vice versa. The trend is to slightly less reflected SW and not much change in the IR in the period.

        An upward trend in net radiation is by convention planetary warming. It shows us that clouds were the major climate driver in this period.

        It is telling us how the Gish Gallup works.
        Just spew a bunch of word salad and link to complex-looking but arbitrary graphs, and lots of gullible rubes get taken in.

        I had to look up gish gallup. Is he accusing NASA/GISS and the IPCC of arbitrary graphs and half truths? Sounds about right.

      • Chief

        [Somehow my post in response to your #269651 ended up nested up-stream so am re-posting. Let’s hope it ends up in the right place.]

        Chief

        Thanks for bringing some sanity into this exchange – BBD was starting to go off the rails.

        If I understand the data you present correctly, it is a combination of PDO and ENSO which, through clouds, have been a major cause for the swings in climate we are seeing, with ENSO shifts more short-term (3-7 years) and PDO shifts longer term (20-30 years).

        The period 1976-1998/2000 saw a warm phase, followed by a cooler phase, with cloud cover oscillating in the same manner (more clouds = cooler).

        The NCDC/NOAA data I cited did not consider PDO, but simply attributed the global temperature anomalies attributable to each of the four major El Nino events that occurred during the 1976-1998 period.

        It is inconceivable that F&R found a net ENSO cooling impact during this period, which is why I suggested to BBD that he ignore the F&R conclusion on this and consider the raw data published by NCDC/NOAA, which showed a net warming effect.

        Now that I’ve seen what you wrote, I’d be inclined to think that some of that late 20thC warming was caused by PDO rather than ENSO.

        How does one differentiate between the one or the other on an annual basis? Do they manifest themselves differently? Or is this even important?

        Forgive me for asking questions, which may seem pretty basic to you, but your post is the first I’ve seen on this that seems to put it all together and make any sense.

        Max

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hi Max,

        The PDO is related to ENSO. For instance – ‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2006/2005GL025052.shtml

        If you take the ENSO dragon-kings of 1976/77 and 1998/01 out – there is not much warming left. Kyle Swanson did it here – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ – leaving a residual of about 0.1 degrees C/decade. The residual is the ‘true global warming signal’ according to Swanson – but that isn’t what the satellites say.

        One of the problems with F&R, Lean and Rind, etc – is that if they are not in accordance with the TOA data – it all seems like whistling in the dark.

        As for BVD – he rejects two different NASA sites, the IPCC, peer reviewed science up the kazoo, realclimate, etc to mistakenly rely on a WFT graph. Then goes on to be over the top abusive. Amazing isn’t it?

        Cheers

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Max,

        Together the systems are known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. They are not oscillations of course they are state shifts on the phase space toplology.

        Cheers

      • You are so bored and above it all, yet you are addicted to incessantly debating denier teabaggers. Is that to boost your low testosterone?

      • BBD … “You do realise that the world laughs at you, don’t you?”
        “You ‘sceptics’ are a joke. How *can* you take yourselves so seriously?”

        I think we all know who the only real self-important joker here is.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘A single modelling study is not ‘unequivocal evidence’ of anything at all. Nor does ENSO drive centennial climate change. If the climate system is steadily forced by GHGs, ENSO will walk along the upward trend, roughly cancelling itself out as it goes. It is an oscillation, remember. ‘ BBD

        It was not in fact a modelling study at all and nor was Tsonis in the sense of a general circulation model. It did discuss the uses and nature of chaotic models. So what you have berated and insulted me about repeatedly is not unequivocal evidence? You are apparently just a serial pest.

        ‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor).’ McWilliams 2007 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

        ENSO is by definition an alternation of warm and cool sea surface temperture in the central Pacific. What changes is the intensity and frequency of ENSO events. It happens on decadal scales.

        ‘Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.’

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

        And influences cloud and the Earth’s energy budget.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1

        Here is where the IPCC gets their data from.

        http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

        And here – ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980′s and 1990′s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’

        http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

        Indeed – there was cooling in the IR and warming in the SW to produce a net warming.

        And there are much longer term changes in ENSO.

        Red shift = El Nino

        More salt = La Nina

      • Anything but ACO2. Underwater volcanoes. The heat of fossil-fuel combustion. Clouds. UHI. Anything. Jogger friction! Evil goobmint has built a lot more jogging paths. Way more than in 1976.

      • The tilted axis is actually another (longer term) oscillation/cycle.

      • BBD > Here, again, is your original lie:
        “S&T are not actually predicting warmer”

        > Here, again is S&T saying the exact opposite
        “warming over the 21st century may well be larger ”
        —-
        So clearly S&T were indeed (and very obviously) not predicting warmer.

        Which means that Badfaith Bravado Shyster has once again been up to his usual trick of lying about the alleged lying of others.

      • Drat, that doesn’t fit. Let’s just shorten it to plain Badfaith.

      • BBD is a nasty little troll who has managed to insult just about everyone you cross.

        Really hard to understand how he got banned over at Bishop Hill.

      • Supportive material for BBD’s 2012 chutzpah prize

        … your foul public behaviour …..

        … you cannot complain when [what I say] contains no overtly abusive language.

  77. Global warming trend and multi-decadal climate variability
    Kravtsov and Tsonis

    “Rapid multi-decadal climate change, at a rate consistent with that actually observed during 1980–2005, is thus due, in our statistical model of global surface temperature (GST) evolution, to a combination of a linear trend (presumably associated with human-induced warming) and amplifying warming phases of intrinsic multi-decadal oscillation. The above interpretation of the observed global warming and ensuing statistical analysis results in that the estimate of human-induced warming rate during 1980–2005 is about twice as small as the actual rate observed; the remainder of the trend is due to intrinsic multi-decadal climate variability. In other words, the recent increased warming rate is interpreted as the consequence of intrinsic dynamics of the climate system, rather than “most up-to-date” estimate of the anthropogenic climate change.”

    The latter difference in interpretations may be one of the key reasons for enormous future warming seen in GCMs. A related property of most GCM forecasts of GST evolution is that their ensemble-mean forecasts are typically uniformly linear, consistent with the notion that potentially important intrinsic climate modes are most likely to be strongly damped and the modeled climatological change is a mere linear response to amplifying radiative forcing. Our statistical results motivate experimentation with global climate GCMs in less viscous parameter regimes than currently used for global change forecasts.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Thanks Kravtsov and Tsonis. It is to see the above inclusion of the multi-decadal oscillation in models that we skeptics have been contradicting IPCC’s “0.2 deg C per decade warming for the next two decades”

    My model ( http://bit.ly/OsdxJf ) says warming after 2030, but their model says cooling. I hope people include the multi-decadal oscillation and see what predictions they come up with.

  78. We have HadCRUT4 now. HadCRUT3 is obsolete. One should really try to keep up.

    HadCRUT4 vs GISTEMP on a common 1981 – 2010 baseline for direct comparison.

  79. Tomas Milanovic

    capt. d., yes, a transient climate doesn’t need to preserve RH, only an equilibrium one. We are in a transient climate for now.

    This comment is actually interesting because it concentrates most misconceptions in one sentence .
    It implies and it is actually highly probable that the author really thinks that we are in a transient climate now while we were not in a transient climate before.

    In reality the Earth has been in a transient climate for 4 billions of years and it is not more so “now” than at any other point of the past.
    The system is a paradigmatic example of a forever transient system.
    Chief is perfectly right to try to educate people like the author of the quote by reminding them (f.ex Palmer) that the only way to predict this kind of out of equilibrium, non linear chaotic system is to try to establish equations providing future (hopefully invariant) probability distributions of states.

    But experience showed me that it is (almost) always a waste of time for anybody who had not studied in depth non linear dynamics and/or fluid dynamics and Navier Stokes.
    It reminds me of people who still deny that QM is a fundamentally probabilistic theory 80 years after it has been proven that dynamical variables simply have no sharply defined value and that only probabilities can be predicted.

    QM is btw a good analogy to describe what Chief is trying to say.
    We are lucky that QM is linear and so the Schrödinger equation is exactly what we need – an equation giving explicitely the probability distributions in time and space.
    Unfortunately fluid dynamics is not so generous and is non linear leading to chaotic states. So we have no explicit equivalent of the Schrödinger equation that would yield the probability distributions. That’s why we have only crude numerical methods (e.g running simulations on too low and non converged resolutions) which try to reconstruct the probability distributions in numerical “experiments”.

    Tsonis is of course no panacea but he also takes the chaotic and transient property of the system seriously and tries to construct a purely empirical model by making interact “indexes” in a non linear way. But of course even in this very simple model there is no way that a small variation of any parameter must lead to a small variation of another parameter neither that the system is in any kind of “equilibrium”.

    Perhaps a last point to answer those who ask what happens in a chaotic system when a parameter (dynamical, topological, boundary) changes.
    Well it always changes the attractor.
    An attractor is a subset of the space of dynamical states (phase space).
    In the case we are discussing here e.g climate/weather, the attractor is a set of climate fields like T(x,t), P(x,t) etc (think Fourrier ortogonal basis) and it is THIS set of functions that changes.

    So the system begins to wander along a different attractor than the one it was wandering before the change
    How different?
    Well the answer on this question is all the non linear dynamics is about.
    Sometimes the attractors are very similar and “near” (for a measure defined for the phase space). There is little change and it would look like a pseudo equilibrium.
    But sometimes, and this is what Chief means when he is talking about catastrophes in René Thom sense, the “new” attractor is radically different both in shape and distance from the “old” one.

    And unless one perfectly understands the dynamics of the transient system, it is impossible to predict whether we are in the former or the latter case.
    The climate science is in infancy in that respect and it should be clear for everybody that naive equilibrium linear models don’t even begin to give a hint of answer.

  80. http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-269204

    Blah Blah Duh, since the threading is FUBAR, that is the link. I think some of my observations may have contributed to the thread situation by the way.

  81. A related property of most GCM forecasts of GST evolution is that their ensemble-mean forecasts are typically uniformly linear, consistent with the notion that potentially important intrinsic climate modes are most likely to be strongly damped and the modeled climatological change is a mere linear response to amplifying radiative forcing.

    Here is what that mean => http://bit.ly/OaemsT

  82. David Springer