Global warming discussion IV

[Reality Check]

Natural factors are dominant in climate change

Which is unfortunately a climate denier lie since 98% of climate scientist believe that the scientific evidence is that our emissions of CO2 have been dominant in climate change for about 40 years (the period that the Sun's output has been constant).
Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or three.

This is Bob Tisdale with his delusion that global warming is caused by natural variations.
Evolutions of Global Surface and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies in Responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niños

So El Niño and La Niña are natural climate cycles NOT driven by AGW

is a delusion since this is not mentioned by Tisdale.
El Niño and La Niña are natural climate events that are driven by many factors. The evidence is growing that AGW is increasing the number of El Niño events.

As is the Wavy Jet Stream a natural climate cycle that we have had in recent decades also NOT driven by AGW

is a lie since the article explicitly quotes an author supporting AGW as a driver for these wavier jet streams:

Back then, Francis said, the Earth was several degrees warmer than now and sea levels were several meters higher. "The recent changes we've seen are clearly linked to increasing greenhouse gases, and there's no sign of abatement in our use of fossil fuels. This does not bode well for impacts of extreme weather and the ecosystem as a whole," she said.
"The biggest challenge in our research," Francis said. "Is that rapid Arctic warming started very recently, so detecting a clear atmospheric response and linking it to a particular cause may take another decade. In the meantime, Mother Nature seems to be acting out."

And here is the paper: Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming

New metrics and evidence are presented that support a linkage between rapid Arctic warming, relative to Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, and more frequent high-amplitude (wavy) jet-stream configurations that favor persistent weather patterns. We find robust relationships among seasonal and regional patterns of weaker poleward thickness gradients, weaker zonal upper-level winds, and a more meridional flow direction. These results suggest that as the Arctic continues to warm faster than elsewhere in response to rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, the frequency of extreme weather events caused by persistent jet-stream patterns will increase.

(my emphasis added)
Followed with Haig's usual delusions about a new Little Ice age !

 

[Trakar]

You're always in a hurry, specially when you ought to pay attention and understand.

Have you finally understood what TSI is?

If you did, please explain why right now TSI is about 1408 W/m2 and the average temperature of the planet is about 12.9°C while on July 1st 2015 TSI was about 1317 W/m2 yet the global average temperature was about 16.5°C. Do you get it? 3.6°C more with 91 W/m2 less, how is that possible? An ice age?

Most people here get that, either as a general concept or with more detail. And you?

Here, I'll give you some hints Haig



In English, the answer might well be alternately defined as "so as to be difficult to understand."



If that don't get you quite there, combine it with a little Billy Preston:



I've got a song ain't got no melody
How'm I gonna sing it to my friends...

...I've got a lil' story ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while...

...I've got a dance I ain't got no steps
I'm gonna let the music move me around...

relate to the refrain,...the style is a bit eclectic
(but that's not the word you are looking for,
...even though it's close!)

Science needs to be enjoyed and played with a little bit to be really embraced.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

So El Niño and La Niña are natural climate cycles NOT driven by AGW

correct....they are enhanced or overlaid on by AGW....do try and keep up with the basics Haig.

 

[a_unique_person]

You've got that backwards Natural factors are dominant in climate change

Evolutions of Global Surface and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies in Responses to the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Niños



So El Niño and La Niña are natural climate cycles NOT driven by AGW

As is the Wavy Jet Stream a natural climate cycle that we have had in recent decades also NOT driven by AGW

Mmmm what's change in recent decades that could be the cause of our climate changing to that of the Little Ice Age ?

Our Sun starting a Grand Solar Minimum !!!!!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382364b8e6e69af1d0.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823654ba3eafdafb1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_38236567178198b0fd.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_382365677d29b526b1.jpg[/qimg]

Natural short term variations are larger than short term climate change. I thought everyone here accepted that already ?

Long term climate change will be larger than short term variations.

 

[Trakar]

Natural short term variations are larger than short term climate change. I thought everyone here accepted that already?...

Good point.

everyone interested in discussing climate change should spend a few days purposely interpreting "climate" as "averaged weather conditions over at least 3 decades."

That's the climatological "instant."

The climate doesn't actually change year to year, weather systems change year to year.

Averaged natural data sets aren't going to show the extremes of the raw data points covering the same spans of time, generally.

Any time anyone is talking about climate they are talking about averaged weather data of some sort.

 

[macdoc]

and we are decidedly out of average

Climate Change and El Nino Locked in Tempestuous Embrace — Teleconnection Between Hot Equatorial Pacific and North Atlantic Cool Pool?

The troubled and tempestuous North Atlantic. It’s a place where the most ominous kinds of atmospheric bombs just keep going off. From the Cumbria floods — the worst seen since at least the Middle Ages — to the 300-year-old bridge wrecking Frank, to above-freezing temperatures at the North Pole during Winter, weather features throughout this region have increasingly taken on the ugly markings of systems twisted by the hand of human-forced warming.

One issue that’s been raised is what, if any, influence El Nino might have had on this most oddly extreme North Atlantic weather? There, such anomalous storms are more than likely the off-shoots of three new features related to climate change. One is a Stefan Ramhstorf-identified cool pool of water just south of Greenland. A freakish region of colder than normal sea surfaces that is, all-too-likely, the result of increased glacial melt outflows from a heat-harrowed Greenland. A second climate change related feature is a zone of very hot water along the Gulf Stream off the US East Coast. This odd warmth is likely due to a kind of Gulf Stream train wreck caused by the blocking lid of fresh water Greenland melt has thrown over that current’s driving circulation. So as the zone south of Greenland cools, the area just off the Eastern Seaboard heats up. A third and final feature is a polar warming related heating of the Barents sea surface along with a related massacre of sea ice in that previously frozen region.

These three features have radically altered the heat and moisture exchange patterns of the North Atlantic and are all too likely the primary factors involved in the crazy increase in extreme weather we’ve seen there during 2013, 2014, and 2015.

(Teleconnection between El Nino and the three freak weather patterns in the North Atlantic? River of moisture running up from the El Nino heat bleed in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific all the way to a storm forming in the North Atlantic cool pool just south of Greenland on January 1 of 2016. Note the above image is a graphical measure of total precipitable water content. Image source: Earth Nullschool.)

more
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/...atorial-pacific-and-north-atlantic-cool-pool/

good read - found that graph very interesting

 

[aleCcowaN]

Wow! The atmosphere carrying 51 kg of moisture per square metre at 25°N in the dead of Winter? Almost never 75 kg can be held in the most tropical conditions with the most tropical heat (it is simply dropped as rain)

Give Haig enough time and he'll find a connection with an earthquake nearby.

By the way, the Antarctic sea ice conditions managed to stay under the radar. We have now an amazing "spot on the normals" condition, which may seem not much if not for the fact the sea ice area there is about one and a quarter million square kilometres less than the previous year's. That means an additional 10²¹Joules absorbed by the planet in just one month, capable itself to push the global temperature a couple of hundredth up during this month.

In parallel, Arctic sea ice is now less than 2013's. And all this in an El Niño year, that is, when nothing extraordinary is supposed to happen in the polar regions.

 

[macdoc]

One wonders if another shot of tropic warmth hits the Arctic in March or April what will happen. Maybe the Sahara/Sahel will green up again in a while. The Namib is still exceptionaly dry but that's a lot of moisture over the Sahara.

 

[macdoc]

Yikes - that'll require a significant tweak

Study Shows Larger Effect of Clouds on El Niño
Observatory
By SINDYA N. BHANOO JAN. 4, 2016

Clouds help amplify El Niño’s effect on the atmosphere to a greater degree than once thought, a new study reports.

In El Niño conditions, sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean become unusually warm and tall thunderheads, known as cumulonimbus clouds, form over the water.

Above them, a layer of colder cirrus clouds also appears. The cirrus clouds trap heat.

“They act as a blanket and further warm the atmosphere,” said Thorsten Mauritsen, a meteorologist at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany and one of the study’s authors.

In the areas that surround El Niño, cumulonimbus clouds are rarer and the sea is more often covered by lower clouds, which cool the air.

Dr. Mauritsen and his colleagues compared climate model simulations that accounted for the role of clouds with models that did not.

They found that if clouds are not factored in, the strength of an El Niño event is underestimated by about two-thirds.

“This phenomenon has a big impact on life around the Pacific, and I can see how it could help us anticipate climates of the future,” he said.

The study appears in the journal Nature Geoscience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/s...t&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

 

[Reality Check]

Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth

Lots of studies into the Sun-climate link have reported that recent changes in the heat output by the Sun are simply too small to explain much of the recent global warming. Even 5 years ago it was clear that Earth's temperature isn't tracking solar activity very well.

And now including data up to 2015, that pattern is even clearer. In each case the 2015 result is based on slightly incomplete data: up to end-November for temperature and mid-October for solar activity. It shows that in the 5 years since we first published a version of the figure below, Earth's surface has continued to warm despite declining solar activity.

As anyone here (except Haig!) can see the 11 year average of temperature has been increasing steadily since ~1970 while the 11 year average of TSI has been roughly constant and is now decreasing.
This is an illustration of hypocrisy from some climate change deniers who have the delusion that the decreasing output from the Sun will cause a new Little Ice Age but deny the obvious fact that global temperatures have been increasing over the last 40 years while TSI has been decreasing.

 

[Haig]

You're always in a hurry, specially when you ought to pay attention and understand.

That's because this is only a bit of fun for me, when I have a bit of spare time pointing out the other side of the climate debate and I give it as much attention as I can at that time, and that's not much sometimes

You have this as your job (you said) and if that is true it's quite sad thing to admit to. You should open your eyes a bit

Have you finally understood what TSI is?

Always did

If you did, please explain why right now TSI is about 1408 W/m2 and the average temperature of the planet is about 12.9°C while on July 1st 2015 TSI was about 1317 W/m2 yet the global average temperature was about 16.5°C. Do you get it? 3.6°C more with 91 W/m2 less, how is that possible? An ice age?

I could be opaque here and just say it's not ALL about TSI other events come into play and then there is our water world and lags But maybe Hansen could help you ...

Why is such a small increase such a big deal?

Because of their great heat storage capacity, the Earth’s oceans would buffer any increase in the Sun’s output for a long time. “Nevertheless, the potential is there for the Sun to be a significant player in the climate game, at least over the long term,” says Hansen, “which is why we need to keep studying the issue.”

Hansen left NASA because he wanted off the leash

So maybe NASA directly too cause I know you like them ...

Solar Radiation

Still, knowledge of TSI alone is not sufficient for understanding the physical processes in the Earth’s ocean and atmosphere system. Recent studies have shown that even for identical TSI variations, atmospheric and ocean temperatures responsd differently depending on the details of Spectral Solar Irradiance (SSI) variations.

And again NASA (large PDF page 5)
The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report

Although the ultraviolet region of the spectrum provides only a small fraction of the TSI, ultraviolet irradiance can change by several percent over the solar cycle, and thus represents an important source of modulation of the energy deposition and composition in the middle and upper atmosphere. Ultraviolet irradiance both changes the radiative balance of the atmosphere and affects the shape of the spectrum of radiation reaching the lower atmosphere. Such variations are thought to drive the top-down coupling mechanism.

Get it now ?

Most people here get that, either as a general concept or with more detail. And you?

Just as NASA are coming around to this ...

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

"The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Still waiting for a critique of NASA's changing view to the Sun - Earth connection aleCcowaN How about it?

 

[Reality Check]

That's because this is only a bit of fun for me, when I have a bit of spare time pointing out the other side of the climate debate...

Sorry, Haig, but that is a lie - you are pointing out the ignorance and even lies of climate change deniers and yourself:
Haig: Greenhouse effect denier - what more need be said ! Except that he has 56 posts of parroted ignorance, delusions and lies from climate change deniers with some of his ignorance, delusions and a lie or three.

This post is more of the same with a new delusion about James Hansen's reasons for leaving NASA. Hansen left NASA to run the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute, i.e. going from climate science to climate education. Leaving NASA also allows Hansen to pursue personal climate activism without embarrassing NASA, e.g. by being arrested when protesting Keystone Pipeline Phase 4.
Lying by quote mining (see my emphasis below).
Why is such a small increase such a big deal?

Climate modeler Jim Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, agrees that the climate impact of .05 percent per decade would be practically non-existent if it were only maintained for one decade. “If such a small change were followed by no further change or a decrease, it’s not important,” he says. “But if that rate of change were maintained for a century, it would be a change of 0.5 percent, which would be very important. A half of a percent change in solar output could raise temperatures, eventually, about three-quarters of a degree Celsius, which, coincidentally, roughly equals the observed warming in the past century,” says Hansen. The apparent coincidence is no smoking gun, however. Because of their great heat storage capacity, the Earth’s oceans would buffer any increase in the Sun’s output for a long time. “Nevertheless, the potential is there for the Sun to be a significant player in the climate game, at least over the long term,” says Hansen, “which is why we need to keep studying the issue.”

The article has no date on it but it cites 2002 and 2003 papers.
That ".05 percent per decade" increase would only be significant for climate if sustained over a century.
That ".05 percent per decade" increase actually turned into a decrease over the last decade !
Latest data shows cooling Sun, warming Earth.

 

[acementhead]

You're always in a hurry, specially when you ought to pay attention and understand.

Have you finally understood what TSI is?

If you did, please explain why right now TSI is about 1408 W/m2 and the average temperature of the planet is about 12.9°C while on July 1st 2015 TSI was about 1317 W/m2 yet the global average temperature was about 16.5°C. Do you get it? 3.6°C more with 91 W/m2 less, how is that possible? An ice age?

Most people here get that, either as a general concept or with more detail. And you?

Laughing dog - squared. Oops, still only one. OK Laughing dog * googolplex squared; there that should do it.

Maybe I can explain; alarmists have their own secret tree hut club definitions of TSI and "global average temperature", while the real world works on standard scientific definitions.

 

[acementhead]

You may try English first:

its = possesive
it's = it is

Then you may try to reply to what is actually written.

If you have problems with simple understanding, I'll break it in small chunks for you:

Temperatures are 4°C above normals in Winter EVERY YEAR now. No matter it's an El Niño year, or La Niña, or neutral (make an effort to write it correctly. I hardly have any command on English and I'm doing better than you in your native language). You know nothing, what includes not knowing that El Niño have no influences on Arctic average temperatures (it has an effect on distribution).

If you had had the slightest idea of what you're talking about (you're just spewing old denialist crap here and nothing else) you would have understood it and you'll have the obvious detailed answer to that.

It's not you who can reply that simple question. It requires to know what you're talking about when AGW (or lack thereof) is the subject. To pretend to be a denialist, like you do, requires indeed some degree of knowledge, not only ill intentions. You bogged half way.

Stop making a fool of yourself and wasting our time here. You may find the idle poppycock in posts of yours like the one above to be welcome in other chatty threads. This one is about science, an alien subject to you.

This is disgraceful. And bizarre. I suggest you comply with not only El Guapo's law but also acementhead's corollary: When schooling somebody in spelling, one should ensure that one's own spelling is correct. If you do as I suggest you won't look as foolish as you do now..

 

[macdoc]

El Niño and a polar vortex behind deadly US tornadoes

Laura Buckman/AFP/Getty

Weird, deadly weather is pounding the US. A cluster of tornadoes have swept through northern Texas and the Midwest in the past week, bringing snow, floods and heavy winds. At least 43 people have died.

While such large tornado activity is unseasonal, it isn’t without precedent. In the past, El Niño years have spawned large storm systems late in the year – in 1957 and 1982, for example. And this year’s El Niño is the strongest ever recorded.

A strong polar vortex probably compounded the situation, keeping the cold air from the east out, says Marshall Shepherd, a meteorologist at the University of Georgia in Athens. “The unusually warm December primes the atmosphere for a significant contrast, and thus the battleground that we’ve seen play out,” he says.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28710-el-nino-and-a-polar-vortex-behind-deadly-us-tornadoes/

What I'm finding astonishing is the Mississipi is about to break some all time records.....IN WINTER!!!!????

More than a week after heavy rains swamped parts of Missouri and Illinois in December 2015, communities along the Mississippi River are facing severe flooding. The rainfall between December 26–28 dropped at least 6 inches on many communities in an area 50 to 75 miles (80 to 120 kilometers) wide. Some areas saw more than 10 inches (25 centimeters).

On January 1, 2016, the Mississippi River crested at its third highest level on record for St. Louis. By January 2, the surge of water caused the highest flood on record at Cape Girardeau and Thebes, south of St. Louis. At Cape Girardeau, water levels peaked at 48.86 feet (14.89 meters). Above 32 feet is considered flood stage; above 42 feet is major flooding. The previous record was 48.50 feet.

The floodwaters have breached levees in several locations. The most notable breach occurred near Miller City, Illinois, near the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. The flood threatened the homes of about 500 people in Olive Branch, Hodges Park, and Unity—nearby towns in Illinois.

On January 3, 2016, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite acquired this image of flooding along the Mississippi River. For comparison, the second image shows conditions under more typical conditions a year ago on January 10, 2015. The images are composed with false color using a combination of infrared and visible light (MODIS bands 7-2-1). Flood waters appear blue; vegetation is green; and bare ground is brown.

The flood water will continue to move southward in the coming days. Forecasters with the National Weather Service expect the flood will crest in Tiptonville, Tennessee, on January 5; Memphis, Tennessee, on January 8, and Helena, Arkansas, on January 10.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87265&src=iotdrss

The calendar is fully in 2016, but the rains that closed out 2015 in the Midwest continue to leave an indelible mark on the region’s rivers. A torrent of water has worked down the Mississippi River, breaking winter flood records and inundating communities along the river and its tributaries.
Rivers are cresting at or near record height across the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys. Nearly a dozen locations have already set all-time record high water marks. In St. Louis, the river set a winter high water mark on Friday with cresting at 42.58 feet on Friday. That’s also the third-highest flood level on record.
The previous winter record holder is December 1982, when the river reached 39.27 feet. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was also during a strong El Niño, which tends to amp up precipitation in the region.

http://wxshift.com/news/the-mississippi-river-floods-could-be-a-billion-dollar-disaster

 

[macdoc]

New rivers forming on melting Greenland ice sheet could boost sea level rise
Sea level rise may get a boost as ice loses ability to absorb meltwater amid climate change

New rivers are appearing on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet as it loses its ability to absorb meltwater, a new study has found. (Dirk van As/Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland)


Summary of the paper in Nature Climate Change

Thousands of new rivers of meltwater are forming on Greenland's ice sheet far inland and dumping gigatonnes of water into the ocean. That could boost sea levels faster than expected, a new study suggests.

The massive ice sheet covering much of Greenland is on average 1.5 to 2 kilometres thick and contains enough ice to raise world sea levels by about six metres if it all melted. That process could take thousands of years to complete, but has been accelerating due to climate change.

Scientists previously thought that melting process might be slowed down by a porous layer on the surface of the ice called firn, which is partway between ice and snow.

'That was a very powerful visual... to see no rivers one year, and the next year rivers extending an additional 20, maybe even 30 kilometres inland.'
- William Colgan, York University
Climate models expected the firn layer to absorb up to 30 to 40 per cent of any meltwater that travels across the ice sheet, allowing it to refreeze instead of pouring into the ocean.

But a new international study has found that during 2012, an unusual amount of melting caused the top of the firn to freeze into solid ice. That meant it could no longer absorb the meltwater, which instead formed thousands of new rivers snaking across the surface of the ice sheet to the ocean.

"That hadn't been seen before," said William Colgan, a researcher at York University in Toronto who co-authored the new study.

William Colgan
York University researcher William Colgan took part in a five-week expedition to the Greenland ice sheet in 2013. The evening after the plane dropped the researchers off, their whiskey had already frozen solid. (Courtesy William Colgan)

"That was a very powerful visual, to see just how dramatically the firn had changed — to see no rivers one year, and the next year rivers extending an additional 20, maybe even 30 kilometres inland."

The rivers could be several metres wide and many appeared farther inland than had ever been seen before.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions of sea level rise are based on models that assume the firn would fill up gradually over the course of a century, reducing the amount of meltwater that Greenland pours into the oceans.

more
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/greenland-firn-1.3389997

 

[aleCcowaN]

Always did



I could be opaque here and just say it's not ALL about TSI other events come into play and then there is our water world and lags But maybe Hansen could help you ...

From your words it's obvious you don't have the faintest idea what TSI is (you never did and it looks you never will), that's why your foolish reply.

Here I was gonna quote the rest of your post, but when I deleted all the repetitive drivel in it, nothing was left.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Laughing dog - squared. Oops, still only one. OK Laughing dog * googolplex squared; there that should do it.

And you think this makes what you believe to be right?

Maybe I can explain; alarmists have their own secret tree hut club definitions of TSI and "global average temperature", while the real world works on standard scientific definitions.

TSI has one sole definition, and those are its values. If you want to join Haig and the denialist choir parroting stupidities wholesale-level denialists publish in Internet dark alleys, I'm not going to oppose it. The more, the merrier (unless you are named Robinson and left without socks )

 

[aleCcowaN]

This is disgraceful. And bizarre. I suggest you comply with not only El Guapo's law but also acementhead's corollary: When schooling somebody in spelling, one should ensure that one's own spelling is correct. If you do as I suggest you won't look as foolish as you do now..

I'm glad you agree the content of my post is spot on.

About the language, I have no obligation as English is not my language and everybody knows I can barely speak it.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Indeed, last week we learned from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that the first eight months of 2015 were the hottest such stretch yet recorded for the globe’s surface land and oceans, based on temperature records going back to 1880. It’s just the latest evidence that we are, indeed, on course for a record-breaking warm year in 2015..

.
Some good news for a change ..... According to Roy Spenser 2015 is only the third warmest year in the satellite record (since 1979), behind 1998 and 2010

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

At least I think it is good news .