Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[knocker]

Its called the natural variability of climate there is no sustained empirical evidence that man is the main driver of climate variability.

 

 

That's known as slightly moving the goal posts to avoid answering the question. Nobody has suggested that man is the main driver of climate variability, Rather that mankind is the main driver of global warming that has taken place for the last 150 years within which natural variability still operates which can be seen by simply looking at the temperature graph. The big question, that has already been posted, is what affect will the warming have on natural variability and feedbacks?

Edited March 11, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

That's known as slightly moving the goal posts to avoid answering the question. Nobody has suggested that man is the main driver of climate variability, Rather that mankind is the main driver of global warming that has taken place for the last 150 years within which natural variability still operates which can be seen by simply looking at the temperature graph. The big question, that has already been posted, is what affect will the warming have on natural variability and feedbacks?

 

You have just told us man is playing a key role is melting 500,000 glaciers. 

 

You cant have it both ways

 

I assume you think there will be a 3c to 6c global rise in temp by century end ?

 

I'm more of 0.1 to 0.4c (all things being equal which of course they wont be) , which is what this thread us about ie  'future prospects'..

[BornFromTheVoid]

You have just told us man is playing a key role is melting 500,000 glaciers. 

 

You cant have it both ways

 

I assume you think there will be a 3c to 6c global rise in temp by century end ?

 

I'm more of 0.1 to 0.4c (all things being equal which of course they wont be) , which is what this thread us about ie  'future prospects'..

 

Do you know what variability and trend are? There is a warming trend that is melting most glaciers around the world, there is variability that in climate that now speeds up or slows down the warming rate (rather than warming and cooling before).

We've already increased by 0.8C, and we're still putting extra CO2 into the air and the planets energy imbalance is still there. There is no reason to think we'll only see another 0.1C increase.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly, BFTV, stew appears to really believe he has enough of an idea on the subject to make his proclamations? This seems to be a tainted P.O.V. we run into time and time again ( needlessly?) where the data is freely available for a person to gain a full insight into what is occurring but choose to halt their studies at a point that suits their own mindset?

 

I cannot , for the life of me, think why folk should not complete their studies fully? Why not strive for the fullest understanding of a subject you have an interest in?

[Midlands Ice Age]

That's known as slightly moving the goal posts to avoid answering the question. Nobody has suggested that man is the main driver of climate variability, Rather that mankind is the main driver of global warming that has taken place for the last 150 years within which natural variability still operates which can be seen by simply looking at the temperature graph. The big question, that has already been posted, is what affect will the warming have on natural variability and feedbacks?

 

Knocker

 

Not posted on here for a couple of days since I last responded to your protestations of sceptics not accepting facts..

I have not been able to be around whilst the  'discussions' with Stew have taken place.

 

However, to accuse Stew of moving the goalposts is a bit rich. 

 

How long has CO2 induced climate changing been taking place?  Until your post above,  people like Mann, Tremberth having been quoting the last 50 years. Suddenly your post starts quoting 150 years!! Sudenly we have seen an extension to the last 150 years. What basis are you using for this statement.! 

 

What proof have you for that statement? 

 

I have always maintained that the climate is still going through a natural warming period out of the last ice age and that the rate is about 0.6C per century (look at the data) ....       This is my opinion and I have seen nothing in scientific literature  to refute that idea. Suddenly you are putting forward the suggestion that man-made warming has been ongoing for at least a half of this  time and next you will be saying that all warming has been caused by CO2 if you keep moving the goalposts at this rate.... 

 

Also if you look a the warming for the last 140 years (as per Lanky on Two) , you will see two bursts of warming have occured.

One from 1880 to about 1930 and one from 1950 to 2000. These bursts of warming have a very similar rate of increase, surely with the huge amounts of CO2 being pushed into the air over the last 50 years, we (you) would have expected very much greater warming in the latest period for your theory of CO2 induced warming over the last 150 years were true.

 

So - Are we to expect your next post to claim CO2 saved us from going into a major ice age?

 

Knocker  this is getting silly... 

 

Stews position is similar to mine . We have not changed our position that CO2 probably will have an effect of about 0.2 to 0.8C on temperature per century (his possibly slightly less than mine). Since we have been in a longer term (300 years?) of steadily rising temperatures of about 0.5C per century caused by natural process of global climate change, which has always been changing, (unless you believe in Mann's totally flat blade).  How can one distinguish the CO2 effect from the natural process?

 

This brings me on to the other technique  beloved by warmies. The old apples and pears techniques used by Mann et al (and BFTV it seems, see above)..... 

 

How can one get temperatures by proxy for the last 10000 years and tack on the last 50 - 100 years of recent records recorded on a totally different way?  No other science allows that technique. It is totally flawed. Particularly when the previous 10000 years is presented as a straight line (Ok a slight trend down). Do you really believe that a true scientist will accept that as evidence?

 

Evidence is accumulating that the temp has varied every 50 or so years (maybe a 62 year cycle?) by maybe as much as 1C (maybe more).. What happens when that variability is plotted onto your graph? The shape suddenly changes.

 

You accused Stew of incorrect data regarding the hurricanes, so he gives you the total picture of hurricanes and tropical storms and cyclones and you go all quiet and change the subject. What are your views on the subject Stew has given the IPCC' s, which doesn't seem to be bearing out.

 

The truth is that Climate Science is still in its infancy  NOONE knows what is behind the major climate drivers(YET).

In another 10 - 20 years we will be a lot closer to understanding it with things like AMO, PDO, solar minimums, and more understanding of geomagnetic effects all  changing in the next few years it sure will be interesting to watch.

 

MIA  .

 

In my mind there is no evidence for catastrophic climate warming. Some warming, yes.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

We have been through this ad nauseam and I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time going through it all again. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe. But just three points.

 

 

You accused Stew of incorrect data regarding the hurricanes, so he gives you the total picture of hurricanes and tropical storms and cyclones and you go all quiet and change the subject

 

I didn't accuse Stew of anything, apart from the soft shoe shuffle, let alone hurricanes which I never mentioned.

 

 

Evidence is accumulating that the temp has varied every 50 or so years (maybe a 62 year cycle?) by maybe as much as 1C (maybe more).. What happens when that variability is plotted onto your graph? The shape suddenly changes.

 

Perhaps you could kindly point me in the direction of this accumulated evidence.

 

 

The truth is that Climate Science is still in its infancy

 

That of course is partly correct except of course the established science of CO₂ and the Greenhouse Effect has been around for over one hundred years. The latching on to teleconnections such as the AMO, PDO, NAO, PNA, WPO, EPO, none of which is known to cause permanent warming whilst ignoring the more obvious explanation remains a puzzle to me. Smacks of a certain desperation.

Edited March 12, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

We have been through this ad nauseam and I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time going through it all again. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe. But just three points.

 

 

I didn't accuse Stew of anything, apart from the soft shoe shuffle, let alone hurricanes which I never mentioned.

 

 

Perhaps you could kindly point me in the direction of this accumulated evidence.

 

 

That of course is partly correct except of course the established science of CO₂ and the Greenhouse Effect has been around for over one hundred years. The latching on to teleconnections such as the AMO, PDO, NAO, PNA, WPO, EPO, none of which is known to cause permanent warming whilst ignoring the more obvious explanation remains a puzzle to me. Smacks of a certain desperation.

 

Knocker

 

Thanks for your reply....

I am afraid I havn't seen any of your (ad) nauseum replies answering any of the questions we are asking.

 

As usual not one of my questions answered ...

 

Particularly the one about the effect of CO2 warming has been going on for 150 years... Where is your proof?

 

I do not have a deadline for the resolving of these issues and therefore unlike your good self have no reason to be desperate.

I really do believe that there is only side of the discussion about CO2 catastrophic warming that could possibly be getting desperate as time is running out for the earth. Havn't you read any of G Wolf's post for example?

 

I'll answer the points you have picked out of my post, in the hope that oneday you may just choose to answer my two very pertinent questions regarding the recent history of global temperatures (going back 140 years)

.

Firstly: As to hurricanes, etc, I  do not know  who first raised the question (possibly Stew), but certainly BFTV questioned  it and you agreed with him quoting 'a snowballs in hell's chance'.All this when Stew has posted a chart to proove his point. is valid. Why did you not refer to the data in your reply?.

 

Secoind      The evidence has been published on Juduth Curry's blog for weeks now that cyclical waves (the stadium waves) have been impacting our temperatures. Nearer to home I referenced to Lanky (very impartial, but a believer as I am in CO2 warming), 

over on Two, who has spent a lot of time and effort detrending all  the major worldwide temperature datasets. They all end up showing the same detrended data with 2 major sine waves with a wavelength of the combined of about 130 years with a gradual increase in temperature at the base of it. The increase in the rate of warming appears not to have accelerated in the last 120 years.

 

He further states that the rate of increase chart seems to be a perfect fit for the AMO for the last 140 years,. However I am afraid it does not seem to fit the rate of CO2 increases.!!! 

 

Before you start I am  not claiming that the AMO is controlling the world temperatures , although that has been claimed by several Japanese and Chinese research teams recently, but it is looking like a very good proxy for the change of temperatures we have experienced certainly over the last 150 years.

 

Now to your final point - CO2 warming is proven in a testtube environment. The way this translates to the atmosphere is still very much a theoretical debate. Things like your ice feedbacks, and also  cloud feedbacks, the way in which the sun and earth's gravitational fields interact in the stratosphere, the way in which the atmosphere and oceans interact together to warm or cool oceans, the effect of a decling sun' activity. (by the way BFTV this only really started in 2003 not over 30 years ago ) I could carry on and on...(the effect of having the next CO2 molecule in the atmosphere the equivalent of 1 foot away, with so many different molecules such as H2O, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen Dioxide,etc all in the way) are not understood..

 

So how is it that the CO2 quantittative effect (not theoretical effect) is  prooven in the atmosphere?

The fact you assume that any warming seen and not understood must be due to CO2 (as per the models) illustrates how little we currently know about the atmosphere

 

Give it 10 - 20 years, knocker, and we wil have a lot of answers, but probably still some will still be outstanding.

 

Oh I forgot ...the world hasn't got that time. It really is getting desperate now!!!

 

How about answering my questions?

 

MIA

Edited March 12, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[4wd]

Even the basic physics of how CO2 is supposed to be causing warming is not clearly understood and relies on many unproven assumptions.
The 0.8C warming is likely at least half natural rebound from Little Ice Age, that leaves 0.4C,
Then there is so much data adjustment going on that half of that is accounted for by making the past incrementally cooler. 

[knocker]

I've told you already that your questions, if you can call them that, have been more than adequately covered before. If you still don't accept the explanations then fine that is your prerogative and we will agree to differ. This is just your usual meandering rhetoric and this is a figment of your imagination.

 

 

BFTV questioned  it and you agreed with him quoting 'a snowballs in hell's chance

 

The stadium wave theory has been around for much longer than weeks and the temps return to their starting point.

Edited March 12, 2015 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

You're just making up a lot of your points, MIA, the fact that you make long posts makes no difference.

 

How long has CO2 induced climate changing been taking place?  Until your post above,  people like Mann, Tremberth having been quoting the last 50 years. Suddenly your post starts quoting 150 years!!

 

-MADE UP

 

I have always maintained that the climate is still going through a natural warming period out of the last ice age and that the rate is about 0.6C per century (look at the data

 

 

-MADE UP: The warming after the ice occurred over 10,000 years ago. As I showed in the graph yesterday (and multiple times before) we've been cooling for the past ~8,000 years up to the industrial revolution.

 

 

 you will see two bursts of warming have occured.

One from 1880 to about 1930 and one from 1950 to 2000. These bursts of warming have a very similar rate of increase, surely with the huge amounts of CO2 being pushed into the air over the last 50 years, we (you) would have expected very much greater warming in the latest period for your theory of CO2 induced warming over the last 150 years were true.

 

 

-MADE UP: The warming from 1880-1930 was about 0.15C, the warming from 1950 to 2000 was about 0.45C. Now, if we look at the actual warming bursts, which were about 1910 to 1940, then 1979 to present, we get about 0.4C and 0.6C increases respectively.

 

Knocker  this is getting silly...

 

 

Ahah, a point of agreement!

 

You accused Stew of incorrect data regarding the hurricanes, so he gives you the total picture of hurricanes and tropical storms and cyclones and you go all quiet and change the subject. What are your views on the subject Stew has given the IPCC' s, which doesn't seem to be bearing out.

 

There is no consensus on whether tropical activity will increase or not. The only forecast I've seen in that regard is that storms will get stronger. This hurricane stuff is simple strawman tactics.

 

 

NOONE knows what is behind the major climate drivers(YET).

 

 

-MADE UP. 

 

The evidence has been published on Juduth Curry's blog for weeks now that cyclical waves (the stadium waves) have been impacting our temperatures. Nearer to home I referenced to Lanky (very impartial, but a believer as I am in CO2 warming), 

over on Two, who has spent a lot of time and effort detrending all  the major worldwide temperature datasets. They all end up showing the same detrended data with 2 major sine waves with a wavelength of the combined of about 130 years with a gradual increase in temperature at the base of it. The increase in the rate of warming appears not to have accelerated in the last 120 years.

 

 

What about the thousands of papers that disagree?

 

Now to your final point - CO2 warming is proven in a testtube environment. The way this translates to the atmosphere is still very much a theoretical debate. Things like your ice feedbacks, and also  cloud feedbacks, the way in which the sun and earth's gravitational fields interact in the stratosphere, the way in which the atmosphere and oceans interact together to warm or cool oceans, the effect of a decling sun' activity. (by the way BFTV this only really started in 2003 not over 30 years ago ) I could carry on and on...(the effect of having the next CO2 molecule in the atmosphere the equivalent of 1 foot away, with so many different molecules such as H2O, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen Dioxide,etc all in the way) are not understood..

 

So how is it that the CO2 quantittative effect (not theoretical effect) is  prooven in the atmosphere?

The fact you assume that any warming seen and not understood must be due to CO2 (as per the models) illustrates how little we currently know about the atmosphere

 

 

We don't understand the climate enough when it comes to decades of research, basic physics, empirical evidence and expert consensus, but we understand it enough when it comes to one single paper describing a purely theoretical stadium wave theory... I see.

 

The greenhouse effect, you know, the one that prevents this planet from becoming a frozen wasteland, has it's basis in physics. The effect of our increased CO2 emissions and thus enhancement of the greenhouse effect can be seen using satellite and ground based mesurements of the changes in downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation, in the specific bands of the greenhouse gasses we've emitted. The empirical evidence is there, has been pointed out to your numerous times.

Here are 2 papers on the subject, but there are more out there.

 

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

 

These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

 

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

 

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

 

 

All of this has been explained to you before, but unfortunately, I'm certain you'll continue to act like you never heard of this stuff in the future. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

Re the above post by BFTV.....

 

No I have made anything up.......

 

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I referenced you to a post on Two by Lanky. I actually mentioned I was using de-trended data.         It (or similar)  have been discussed widely on the web recently and I assumed you were aware.

 

Lanky  has done much work  on this field recently.    Basically he took the official datasets from HADRUT4, NOAA and GISS going back to 1880 and de-trended the data for all the variables except the AMO and CO2  and then he has calculated the rate of change of the temps as defined for the next 30 year period starting in 1880. So the remaining trend all things being equal should just show  the trends for 'anything unknown', plus  any CO2 (all types ), and  AMO changes..

 

So being kind, you have totally misunderstood where I was coming from. Would you like to try again?

 

I will admit to one bad on my part. Whilst talking about the last 150 years I accidently referred to the Ice Age when I clearly meant the Little Ice Age and you picked up on it immediatley          Good spot!. Thanks for your understanding BFTV!!!

 

Anyway please review my post in the light of the following chart which are produced from as I stated acual data supplied by your official agencies. 

 

To help you --  the graph is presented as a temperature rate of change chart for the next 30 years from each date on the baseline. The trend warming lines  I referred too above   are the slopes of the upslopes for each  of the two periods in question. ie 1880 -1915 (30 years before) and 1937- 1977 (again starts 30 years before the actual).

 

I think you will find the de-trended data (excluding all last centuries natural warming and cooling features) end up with a totally different chart to yours for actual temperature data..

 

I am very flattered that you think I am capable of dreaming up the data! I guess that comes from you being to close to GWolf for too long!.

 

Also as you may spot  the changing rates of change of the data shown (ie -  any trend in the rate of temperture change), gives very little difference (the slope) in the two periods.in question. This means that no change in trend has been shown for every 30 year period for the last 135 years.

 

Remember that any CO2 induced warming should be shown in the graph.

 

I have to agree with you and that there is a warming 'trend' showing in the graph. It corresponds to about 0.2C per century (max) and is given by each succesive higher uplift of each section of the warming. Clue - there is a sine wave function every 60 odd years and the bottom and the top denote the differences..

However, as you can see,  this appears to have been happening since at least 1880. Hence my question about the (litlte) ice age which got misconstrued the first time around.

 

So can i have a proper appraisal oif the graph in question this time?            If you want to respond in a meaningful way?

 

[knocker]

Evidence that the Atmospheric-Oceanic System is Evolving Towards a Strong El Nino

 

There are a number of signs that suggest the atmosphere and ocean are working together in such a way that could produce a strong El Nino to emerge this Summer and continue into the cool season. Recency bias associated with last year’s El Nino event in the media mainstream would suggest here comes another early Spring El Nino hyping… but there has been enough evidence that suggests an El Nino event did in fact evolve late last Spring which continued through early Winter. This being said, there are now a number of global-scale observations that support evidence to put out a strong El Nino alert for the 2015 Summer and Fall Seasons. El Nino atmospheres during the Summer are often associated with a strong uptick in Pacific (West and East) tropical cyclone activity, a colder than average U.S. summer, and a reduced frequency of Atlantic tropical cyclones.

 

http://www.wsi.com/blog/energy/evidence-that-the-atmospheric-oceanic-system-is-evolving-towards-a-strong-el-nino/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Re the above post by BFTV.....

 

No I have made anything up.......

 

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I referenced you to a post on Two by Lanky. I actually mentioned I was using de-trended data.         It (or similar)  have been discussed widely on the web recently and I assumed you were aware.

 

Lanky  has done much work  on this field recently.    Basically he took the official datasets from HADRUT4, NOAA and GISS going back to 1880 and de-trended the data for all the variables except the AMO and CO2  and then he has calculated the rate of change of the temps as defined for the next 30 year period starting in 1880. So the remaining trend all things being equal should just show  the trends for 'anything unknown', plus  any CO2 (all types ), and  AMO changes..

 

So being kind, you have totally misunderstood where I was coming from. Would you like to try again?

 

I will admit to one bad on my part. Whilst talking about the last 150 years I accidently referred to the Ice Age when I clearly meant the Little Ice Age and you picked up on it immediatley          Good spot!. Thanks for your understanding BFTV!!!

 

Anyway please review my post in the light of the following chart which are produced from as I stated acual data supplied by your official agencies. 

 

To help you --  the graph is presented as a temperature rate of change chart for the next 30 years from each date on the baseline. The trend warming lines  I referred too above   are the slopes of the upslopes for each  of the two periods in question. ie 1880 -1915 (30 years before) and 1937- 1977 (again starts 30 years before the actual).

 

I think you will find the de-trended data (excluding all last centuries natural warming and cooling features) end up with a totally different chart to yours for actual temperature data..

 

I am very flattered that you think I am capable of dreaming up the data! I guess that comes from you being to close to GWolf for too long!.

 

Also as you may spot  the changing rates of change of the data shown (ie -  any trend in the rate of temperture change), gives very little difference (the slope) in the two periods.in question. This means that no change in trend has been shown for every 30 year period for the last 135 years.

 

Remember that any CO2 induced warming should be shown in the graph.

 

I have to agree with you and that there is a warming 'trend' showing in the graph. It corresponds to about 0.2C per century (max) and is given by each succesive higher uplift of each section of the warming. Clue - there is a sine wave function every 60 odd years and the bottom and the top denote the differences..

However, as you can see,  this appears to have been happening since at least 1880. Hence my question about the (litlte) ice age which got misconstrued the first time around.

 

So can i have a proper appraisal oif the graph in question this time?            If you want to respond in a meaningful way?

 

 

The little ice age was a continuation of the cooling trend already in place, just regionally pronounced in the north Atlantic. That doesn't support your argument at all.

 

The rate of change chart still shows that the last 30 years (including the "pause") the increase is faster than any record back before 1950. The last period of increase only lasted 40 years, the current one is over 60 years and still going strong. So the recent increase in temps has been stronger and much more prolonged than that in the early 20th century. Completely refuting your earlier points.

 

We've warmed by about 0.8C over the last century, how on Earth do you make that out to be 0.2C per century?

 

Do you have anything at all to say about all the empirical evidence that shows an enhanced greenhouse effect, from the GhGs that we've emitted into the atmosphere? Or the fact that all the warming signs and patterns are evidence for greenhouse induced warming?

[knocker]

Re the above post by BFTV.....

 

No I have made anything up.......

 

If you had read my post correctly you would have seen that I referenced you to a post on Two by Lanky. I actually mentioned I was using de-trended data.         It (or similar)  have been discussed widely on the web recently and I assumed you were aware.

 

Lanky  has done much work  on this field recently.    Basically he took the official datasets from HADRUT4, NOAA and GISS going back to 1880 and de-trended the data for all the variables except the AMO and CO2  and then he has calculated the rate of change of the temps as defined for the next 30 year period starting in 1880. So the remaining trend all things being equal should just show  the trends for 'anything unknown', plus  any CO2 (all types ), and  AMO changes..

 

So being kind, you have totally misunderstood where I was coming from. Would you like to try again?

 

I will admit to one bad on my part. Whilst talking about the last 150 years I accidently referred to the Ice Age when I clearly meant the Little Ice Age and you picked up on it immediatley          Good spot!. Thanks for your understanding BFTV!!!

 

Anyway please review my post in the light of the following chart which are produced from as I stated acual data supplied by your official agencies. 

 

To help you --  the graph is presented as a temperature rate of change chart for the next 30 years from each date on the baseline. The trend warming lines  I referred too above   are the slopes of the upslopes for each  of the two periods in question. ie 1880 -1915 (30 years before) and 1937- 1977 (again starts 30 years before the actual).

 

I think you will find the de-trended data (excluding all last centuries natural warming and cooling features) end up with a totally different chart to yours for actual temperature data..

 

I am very flattered that you think I am capable of dreaming up the data! I guess that comes from you being to close to GWolf for too long!.

 

Also as you may spot  the changing rates of change of the data shown (ie -  any trend in the rate of temperture change), gives very little difference (the slope) in the two periods.in question. This means that no change in trend has been shown for every 30 year period for the last 135 years.

 

Remember that any CO2 induced warming should be shown in the graph.

 

I have to agree with you and that there is a warming 'trend' showing in the graph. It corresponds to about 0.2C per century (max) and is given by each succesive higher uplift of each section of the warming. Clue - there is a sine wave function every 60 odd years and the bottom and the top denote the differences..

However, as you can see,  this appears to have been happening since at least 1880. Hence my question about the (litlte) ice age which got misconstrued the first time around.

 

So can i have a proper appraisal oif the graph in question this time?            If you want to respond in a meaningful way?

 

 

From your rather vague description, and the usual failure to link to a more detailed one, I must admit I didn't follow what you were saying concerning the detrending of the AMO. I think I may now have twigged and if I'm correct this discussion has been around a while and doesn't actually alter the global temperature trend, merely it's construction. I'll link to a post by Zeke Hausfather, http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/author/zhausfather/ ( there are some other interesting blogs at this link) from 2011 on the subject (the comments section must also be read) which hopefully will clarify the subject. Of course it may not.

 

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Modern Warming

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-modern-warming/

[VillagePlank]

So can i have a proper appraisal oif the graph in question this time?            If you want to respond in a meaningful way?

 

 

I've done the same analysis a number of times, on this forum, here, for example, and also a number of years ago - still on this forum, but I can't find it. This is not a new analysis. IIRC, I think even BFTV identified the pattern years ago, as well.

 

What does it mean? Well, I linked it to the AMO - but never quite had to the time to do the job properly - but that doesn't account for the slow up-trend in the sinusoidal cycle.

[Gray-Wolf]

Why, oh why, oh why must folk ignore the general N.Hemisphere cooling when looking at our current warming?

 

To me the overturning of millennia of slow cooling must itself demand explanation? Why has M.I.A. never bothered to give his 'reasoning' behind this amazing turn around against the orbital forcings and then beginning a warming even against these global cool orbital forcings? 

 

Like stopping a super tanker and then powering it in the opposite direction this takes a lot of energy and a long time period to achieve ( to my mind). of course we then need to look into what 'climate momentum' means once the new direction is established? Things like the energy 'liberated' in the climate system once it is no longer needed to melt ice over summer ( as the ice is melted). Where does this energy now employ itself ( never mind the 'new energy' we get from the albedo flip once ice/snow has gone)?

 

If M.I.A. frequents TWO then he will know that Grandad has provided a wonderful opportunity for others to highlight why we ought have concerns about this new warm phase as he tries to say it is all adequately explained by a 60 year mysterious cycle. 

[VillagePlank]

If M.I.A. frequents TWO then he will know that Grandad has provided a wonderful opportunity for others to highlight why we ought have concerns about this new warm phase as he tries to say it is all adequately explained by a 60 year mysterious cycle. 

 

 

Not mysterious, at least one well correlated suspected culprit, see my previous link.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sparkicle

[Midlands Ice Age]

BFTV and Knocks...  Edit     (and Sparks, I see...)

 

Thanks for you more realistic and reasoned posts.

Please try and give me a bit of scope as posting is new to me and my security settings seem to be preventing me from picking up charts adhoc as you guys seem able to do.

 

I do not want to change the settings as I have other data to worry about.

 

I havn't read your links yet, but I will answer a couple of BFTV's points now and come back later on the rest.

 

Firstly, the graph's slopes (because its a rate of change graph) will show the TRENDS. 

 

I agree totally that there is warming taking place. I have never denied it. Nor have 99% of other reasoned people.

 

What I am talking about is whether or not the trend of increasing temperatures is changing (as would be expected according to your theories of manmade CO2 enhanced warming). The graph I showed  above shows clearly that the trends of warming seem to be unaltered during the last 150 years.  (The slopes of the graph for each period look identical). 

 

Now I agree with you that what does appear to have changed is the lengths of the warming pattern appear different. As you correctly point out BFTV there does appear to be - 

a) some effect on the changes of the lengths of the forcings taking place.

b) a gradual warming trend taking place.

 

If the warming is induced by manmade CO2 (as you clearly believe) would you not expect to see that the TREND should show an increase?        It doesn't.                The warmth seems to be being brought about by means of a difference in the lengths of these cycles.  (To me) .

 

Now surely, something  is causing these cycles to change, but not effect the overall rate of change of the warming. Correct? 

 

It looks to me as if its something more related to the wavelengths of this cyclical change, that is having an effect. Perhaps if we looked into this phenomena we would be closer to establishing the true pattern of our climate. To my mind it must be related to the way in which the oceans and atmosphere interact, possibly involving cloud albedo which would cause somethig like the above. It is the one area of climate which is currently not understood sufficiently to accurately model.

 

Also  BFTV,  the rate of change I am talking about is not the change of the temperatures. It is the trend of the rates of change of the temperatures.. You can see this is virtually unaltered (the slopes). There is some residual warming left over, and this is shown on the graph by the 'higher' trend in the peaks and the troughs. This equates to potentially some 0.2C per century and is what I am referring too.  This (if you assume the other warming shown is not related to CO2, as I discussed above!!!)  could be the signal produced by CO2 warming. 

 

My mind is running wild as I type (doing a Grey Wolf!), could the above (if correct, I agree), not explain how long-term temperature changes occur.?  it may well be the secret (reason?) for mini ice ages  and warming periods experienced in the past!!!

 

Which brings me on to the last of my original points I was going to come back to BFTV about......

 

Your statement  that temperatures have been in decline since lets say 8000 years ago after the rise from the last Ice Age is obviously true. That is not what is causing me angst and doubt. I am talking about more short-term changes. Using your suggestion how would we have got into Minoan warming, how would we have entered the Egyptian warming, how would we have had a Roman warming period? To say nothing of the Medieaval warming period. Oh I understand, they didn't exist! 

 

What i am suggesting is that there is some medium-term  fluctuations/effects  taking place that affect our climate for the 100's of years periods  that we currently do  not understand.

 

I still believe that the next twenty years could be at a changing  point in our climate, and we will be much the wiser after having experienced and measured it. At least it should define the correct practical  and quantitative impact of CO2 induced  climate change.

 

Will be back after reading your links.

 

MIA

Edited March 13, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

Why, oh why, oh why must folk ignore the general N.Hemisphere cooling when looking at our current warming?

 

To me the overturning of millennia of slow cooling must itself demand explanation? Why has M.I.A. never bothered to give his 'reasoning' behind this amazing turn around against the orbital forcings and then beginning a warming even against these global cool orbital forcings? 

 

Like stopping a super tanker and then powering it in the opposite direction this takes a lot of energy and a long time period to achieve ( to my mind). of course we then need to look into what 'climate momentum' means once the new direction is established? Things like the energy 'liberated' in the climate system once it is no longer needed to melt ice over summer ( as the ice is melted). Where does this energy now employ itself ( never mind the 'new energy' we get from the albedo flip once ice/snow has gone)?

 

If M.I.A. frequents TWO then he will know that Grandad has provided a wonderful opportunity for others to highlight why we ought have concerns about this new warm phase as he tries to say it is all adequately explained by a 60 year mysterious cycle. 

 

GW,

 

yes I do look at Two and frequent Judith Curry and Climate.com, etc, etc,etc.

I look  to as much as I can on both sides of the debate, unlike a lot of people it seems.  

 

RE  your post above..

I havn't ignored northern hemisphere warming and cooling. please see my post above I have just posted  for your response.

The effect (with a shortening of  the wavelength of warming) will also produce periods of cooling.

 

PS - Just found something else of real interest in this area on the Judith Curry blog.

 

Read the latest entry as I cannot provide the link.

[Methuselah]

Not mysterious, at least one well correlated suspected culprit, see my previous link.

I'm not going to dismiss this natural cycle, Spark; only point out that successive peaks seem to be getting higher.

[VillagePlank]

I'm not going to dismiss this natural cycle, Spark; only point out that successive peaks seem to be getting higher.

That's kind of the point.

Whilst we can generate a reasonably convincing sinusoid over the last 100 years or so there is still an underlying trend albeit a small one. If you read the link I posted you'll see I did the math and the 2100AD temp would add this trend up to be about 1.5c above the average.

I suggested that this may well be the CO2 signal. The problem is that this is too big for deniers and too small for catastrophists so it got largely ignored.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Sparkicle

[Midlands Ice Age]

That's kind of the point.

Whilst we can generate a reasonably convincing sinusoid over the last 100 years or so there is still an underlying trend albeit a small one. If you read the link I posted you'll see I did the math and the 2100AD temp would add this trend up to be about 1.5c above the average.

I suggested that this may well be the CO2 signal. The problem is that this is too big for deniers and too small for catastrophists so it got largely ignored.

 

Sparks

 

just come back on.

I didn't see your earlier exchanges ( I assume with BFTV,etc?). 

I came to my conclusions, after looking at the subject myself based on the actual data presented.

I stayed away from the models at all costs!

 

My thoughts above (as I suggested) could explain many of the features of our climate which the warmers have had to deny.

vis the several warming periods, and the cold periods of climate, which Mann seems to want to expunge from existence.  

 

From the data'something else' looks more likely to me, as the climate record for the last 135 years does not look a perfect fit to me for CO2 manmade controlling the temperatures. 

 

Now my theory, as expounded above, may be correct, but I had no idea as to what may be causing the effects.

 

If (as G Wolf suggests  repeatedly) the  climate warming really takes off in the next 10 - 20 years, then I think the game is 95% certainty that CO2 is messing around with the cycles. (My 2sigma scientific bounds), but if not then we need to start looking elsewhere. 

 

Which brings me on to Judith Curry's blogg. She had invited  4 scientists to report on their work on the way the satellites are currently measuring  the outgoing radiation from the earth. Ignoring the values, the really rather strange thing they foiund (and this comes back to GW's point) to their surprise, they found virtually no difference between the northern hemisphere radiation outgoing (to within 0.2watts sq m  of energy) compared to the southern hemisphere. Apparently this is in complete contradiction to what all the models  are forecasting.           It is presented as a complete shock!!

 

Apparently the models work on different reflectivity for the southern hemisphere (being mainly ocean biased) compared to the northern hemisphere (mainly land biased). For it to be so close, there is speculation that some form of energy must be being transferred between the two hemispheres. Apparently this has not been considered in the models before.

 

I am now going back to see what the  assembled body of opinion on the blog thinks is causing  it, and what effects this my have on our future climate.  Most people (including Judith)  think the effects could be substantial if found to be correct......

 

Definately of interest to everyone on here with open minds, I would hope.

 

MIA

Edited March 13, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

I'm not going to dismiss this natural cycle, Spark; only point out that successive peaks seem to be getting higher.

 

Mrs Trellis....

 

No one is disputing this. I have already suggested that may be the CO2 warming signal?, but it is only showing 0.2C per century so maybe some people on here will not accept it.

 

We will see. The next 10 years will proove you're theory or dismiss it.

 

I wouldn't like to say which one will be correct..

but from the actual data my money is slightly on the natural cycles (as you call it)!!

 

I do not know what is causing it, but there is something showing up in this detrended data that is unexpected and it will give us a method of seeing which way the money will be going in the future!!!

 

MIA. 

Edited March 13, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

 

From the data'something else' looks more likely to me, as the climate record for the last 135 years does not look a perfect fit to me for CO2 manmade controlling the temperatures. 

 

 

Why not. If, as we should do, replace the incorrect statement, "CO2 manmade controlling the temperatures". with anthropogenic global emissions of CO₂ are the main cause of climate change/global warming?

Edited March 13, 2015 by knocker

[Daniel*]

Why not. If, as we should do, replace the incorrect statement, "CO2 manmade controlling the temperatures". with anthropogenic global emissions of CO₂ are the main cause of climate change/global warming?

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

But the IEA warned that while the results were "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460