Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Tumbleweed]

Here's a few fun weather observations that seem to suggest something's amiss. I have lived in the same location since 1973, and here are some of the out of the ordinary things I have observed since 2003
1.Oct 2003. All time 24hr rain at SeaTac. 5' shatters old record of 3.75
2.Dec 2005- Jan 2006 33 days in a row of rain at SeaTac and 35 at Olympia breaks old record
3.Summer of 2006 One of driest on record, first 60+ lows ever recorded at my place
4. Nov 2006 record floods on many W. Washington rivers
5. Nov 2006. wettest month ever recorded at Sea Tac and here
6, Dec 2006. Highest winds ever recorded at SeaTac
7. Dec 2006 an incredible 7.5 inches of rain in one day obliterates old 5 inch record from 2003 (see no1) that shattered the previous record of 3.75
8. Jan 2008 Biggest snow storm ever hits the Sierras
9. April 2008. Snow in April is very rare in Puget Sound but on the 18th they had 10 inches at Everet just north of Seattle
10 May 17th 2008 and not even close to summer: All time high here of 94. Old record was 91
11. June 2008 Biggest floods ever in Iowa and Missouri
12.. Dec 2008. Biggest snows since living here with snow on ground an unprecedented 18 days in a row. Over 24" for winter. Previous record was 17
13. May/ June 2009. Record spring dry spell at Sea Tac 28 days
14. July 2009 Worst heat wave BY FAR to ever hit the Pacific NW. Previously it had only been 90+ at SeaTac for 5 days in a row once. Two times there were 4 days above 90 in a row. Five times there have been three. This time we may have 7 or 8. Widespread all time highs are expected tomorrow for a huge swath of the Pacific NW
15. June/ July 2009 For the first time since the 1850's there are no 90 degree days in NY
But hey you know what the scientists say: My records are anectdotal and don't mean a damned thing

 

[Tumbleweed]

Warmer air, created by carbon dioxide bouncing back solar rays, raises sea temps. That causes air above that water to heat and rise. That creates a vacuum or low pressure system. The low pressure system tries to fill in but spins instead. The air spun out creates a high pressure system that both blocks and steers the low pressure system that created it. Lows cause snow and rain. Highs cause dry weather , heat waves in the summer and cold waves in the winter. So if you AMPLIFY the lows through global warming you ALSO amplify the highs. Hence new records in all aspects of the weather: Snow storms, rain storms, heat waves cold waves and drought. They ALL get bigger. Pretty much simple if this, then this logic and physics. So don't be stupid and say how can it snow more and break cold records if we are warming up

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

That snide remarks or inane lecturing about straight line versus poly curve fits mgiht be something that I would just laugh at

But only if you were capable of understanding the difference between trying to detect a signal in a noisy environment, which is what Rahmstorf and Stockwell did, and fitting polynomials that go through every data point (which would only be a trend in the complete absence of noise), as McIntyre did. Sorry, but I don't know a simpler way of explaining it.

(all the more at an assertion that McIntyre, the high school math champion of Canada, would not know such things).

Yes, I suppose that the other possibility is that he does know the difference but was just being dishonest knowing how ignorant his readers are.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You fail to realize this goes against the hysteria. Technology is able to allow adaptation to climate change. I am glad you believe in mythical religious figures who can control the tides but I do not share in those religious beliefs.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Saul Mhaze rule #3.1416, perhaps ?

You're so full of hate but you are still a fragile personality; the whole thing has quite impaired you. You just selected the way that can be parallel-quote this way: "if you understand science and science is on your side, pound the science. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have neither science nor facts on your side, pound the table "

 

[Geckko]

Some new related analysis on this from the NOAA as reported on Roger Pielke's blog. It is an analysis of temeprature trends from 1999 to present:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html

The paper indicates that this is a pretty rare set of events (10 years of no warming) under model simulations, but not impossible.

The paper goes on to state that 15 years wouls make it an event that current climate models find very difficult to simulate (i.e. to explain), here:

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

What is an interesting part of the analysis is where they attempt to disaggregate the ENSO (i.e. the cyclical, natural) component. They conclude that over the last decade this was a postive influence on trends - i.e. the measured trend was boosted by cyclical short-term effects. Someone early in this thread (think it was Macdoc) ascribed some of the lack of warming over the last decade to temporary cooling effect from ENSO:

The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, well it could also just mean we are talking at cross purposes. ...

In the matrix of old ice is trapped a lot of solids, including dust of the aeons and the last 250 year's industrial soot.

When you start melting it, water runs off by percolating down through cracks and the soot is largely left on or near the surface and not washed away. This darkens the surface, accelerating melting. Once it gets to a certain point, the only thing that will stop it is a layer of new snow thick enough that the buried layer does not warm. If that new snow lasts the summer, you have stopped the process in its tracks. If it does not last the summer, the process continues.

Not only does this cause melt, but it holds heat in the system, and of course the melting itself stores heat due to the phase change.

Some of this heat is re-radiated by the warm surface layer.

Some of that heat is again sent back to the earth by GHG effects.

Its an amplification.

 

[Dancing David]

And of course you are right. If the mods are willing, please move those replies. Thanks.

Sorry, I was getting controlling. I apologise to all.

 

[mhaze]

In the matrix of old ice is trapped a lot of solids, including dust of the aeons and the last 250 year's industrial soot.

When you start melting it, water runs off by percolating down through cracks and the soot is largely left on or near the surface and not washed away. This darkens the surface, accelerating melting. Once it gets to a certain point, the only thing that will stop it is a layer of new snow thick enough that the buried layer does not warm. If that new snow lasts the summer, you have stopped the process in its tracks. If it does not last the summer, the process continues.

Not only does this cause melt, but it holds heat in the system, and of course the melting itself stores heat due to the phase change.

Some of this heat is re-radiated by the warm surface layer.

Some of that heat is again sent back to the earth by GHG effects.

Its an amplification.

I think that the way I view this theory is as nominal a mechanism as to make it irrelevant. For example, the particle of soot captures thousands of times more energy from sunlight than through your proposed mechanism. This can be easily calculated from the physics using a range of possible GHG effects from the 0.5C per CO2 doubling espoused by many skeptics or "Deniers" to the 3-10C change favored by Warmers. That 3-10C is after incorporating positive feedbacks, and the Warmer base number for no feedbacks or forcings is 1.6C or so. IR only penetrates a tiny fraction of a millimeter into the surface and is essentially a very weak photon.

Which is likely why I've never heard of scientific papers that promulgated this concept. But if you know of any, bring them on.

 

[Pixel42]

What is an interesting part of the analysis is where they attempt to disaggregate the ENSO (i.e. the cyclical, natural) component. They conclude that over the last decade this was a postive influence on trends - i.e. the measured trend was boosted by cyclical short-term effects. Someone early in this thread (think it was Macdoc) ascribed some of the lack of warming over the last decade to temporary cooling effect from ENSO:

That's interesting, because some research that's about to be published says (my bold):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.

The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

 

[Geckko]

That's interesting, because some research that's about to be published says (my bold):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Well, even at first glance.

One is an analysis over 10 years (1999-2008) the other states it is over 7, so they might both be correct.

ETA:

Reading the report again, I think the paper is worth looking out for because this:

together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked

Doesn't make sense. At a pedantic level, ENSO events aren't trend events, but cyclical ones.

At a practical level a lack of strong ENSO events (of either type) means less influence on a measured T trend, not more.

Will have to wait for the paper to see what exactly is done. It could be measures of la Nina cycle (dampening trends), not "an absence of" El Nino cycle and that the Grauniad has f'd up the reporting (again )

 

[Geckko]

Another reason to look out for that paper is that it might offer some decent predictive statements, like the following:

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Good benchmarks to test their hypotheses. That statement implies a jump to around 0.3 degrees C per decade, over what time frame, I would be interested to see.

ETA:
Just reread article. It implies between now and 2014, but that also might be wrong. If true, then it isn't much use as it means 0.15 degrees in 5 years if a decent El Nino kicks in. That is hardly news.

 

[mhaze]

Another reason to look out for that paper is that it might offer some decent predictive statements, like the following:

Good benchmarks to test their hypotheses. That statement implies a jump to around 0.3 degrees C per decade, over what time frame, I would be interested to see.

Pixel42's reference is certainly interesting, although it is not the first time anyone has looked at several factors like this. I think the study can be disregarded because it asserts that the driver of climate from the sun is sunspot numbers and solar cycles.

Well, it's not. As noted in Georgieva 2005, the aK index does a better job of correlation with T, r=0.85. Moreover, while sunspot numbers have declined in recent decades, the ak index has gone up (Compare figure 1 in the pdf with figure 6).

The net effect of "picking and choosing" the sunspot numbers and or the 11 year solar cycle would be to increase the apparent effect of other factors, eg man's GHG emissions. The net effect of picking the more highly correlated solar measurement, the ak index, is to decrease the estimated effect of other factors such as man's GHG emissions.

I'm also compelled to note that it isn't even a scientific result to predict that "Warming will return". Just the PDO cycle alone shows that periods of global warming, cooling and unchanging temeratures will reoccur and have for thousands of years.

 

[Geckko]

I'm also compelled to note that it isn't even a scientific result to predict that "Warming will return". Just the PDO cycle alone shows that periods of global warming, cooling and unchanging temeratures will reoccur and have for thousands of years.

Our edits crossed.

 

[mhaze]

Warmer air, created by carbon dioxide bouncing back solar rays, raises sea temps. That causes air above that water to heat and rise. That creates a vacuum or low pressure system. The low pressure system tries to fill in but spins instead. The air spun out creates a high pressure system that both blocks and steers the low pressure system that created it. Lows cause snow and rain. Highs cause dry weather , heat waves in the summer and cold waves in the winter. So if you AMPLIFY the lows through global warming you ALSO amplify the highs. Hence new records in all aspects of the weather: Snow storms, rain storms, heat waves cold waves and drought. They ALL get bigger. Pretty much simple if this, then this logic and physics. So don't be stupid and say how can it snow more and break cold records if we are warming up

Respectively, what you have done here is to assign cause of local weather phenomena to carbon dioxide. This is incorrect, but the reasons sometimes are technical. Here is just one example. "Hurricanes will be more intense because of Global Warming (yada yada yada). Well, reality is that hurricanes form in quiet air. If the air is more turbulent (as you have above mentioned) then FEWER hurricanes can form.

Take a look at the polar vortices and global circulation to and from the poles to get a more accurate idea of climate on the large scale.

 

[lomiller]

as reported on Roger Pielke's blog.

You may want to ask yourself why he doesn’t publish if it’s such a significant result (other then his complete lack of qualifications that is…). The answer of course is that it’s cherry picking aimed at fooling the mathematically illiterate.

See, the thing is 1998/1999 were so far above the underlying long term trend they almost broke the 3 sigma confidence level. By cherry picking this for a starting point you can cover several decades of 0.2 deg/dec warming quite easily.

 

[Geckko]

You may want to ask yourself why he doesn’t publish if it’s such a significant result (other then his complete lack of qualifications that is…). The answer of course is that it’s cherry picking aimed at fooling the mathematically illiterate.

See, the thing is 1998/1999 were so far above the underlying long term trend they almost broke the 3 sigma confidence level. By cherry picking this for a starting point you can cover several decades of 0.2 deg/dec warming quite easily.

It was a comment on an article in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) annual report.... (I didn't link it because it is 15MB and thought people might not appreciate that)

Roger Pielke was only blogging on it.

The excerpts I quoted are from the NOAA, not Roger Pielke

The issues you mention (ENSO events) are specific elements of the NOAA analysis and I talk about them above. They found these to be positive for temperature trend between 1999-2008 (1998 was strong El Nino, but 1999 was strong la Nina).

If you have a problem with it complain to the NOAA

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Well, it's not. As noted in Georgieva 2005, the aK index does a better job of correlation with T, r=0.85. Moreover, while sunspot numbers have declined in recent decades, the ak index has gone up (Compare figure 1 in the pdf with figure 6).

Correlation can easily be mis-interpreted if one doesn't consider the physical problem. In particular, there can be a coincidental correlation between 2 physical quantities for portion of a time series, and computing the statistical correlation coefficient may still give a large value. A simple example can show this. If I correlate y with x where
x = i, 1<=i<=100
y = x, 1<=i<=50
y = 50, 51<=i<=100
I get a correlation coefficient of about 0.89, a very high value, even though in the second half of my series x and y are completely uncorrelated! This is apparently what happened in the paper that mhaze referenced, where it is obvious that changes in the AK index lag changes in the temperature trend by at least a decade, making it unlikely that the AK index can be a measure of something that causes changes in the temperature trend.

 

[lomiller]

Roger Pielke was only blogging on it.

He reaches conclusions that are not contained in the original paper.

If you have a problem with it complain to the NOAA

Why? The conclusions in blog you linked to are theirs alone and have nothing to do with anything in the NOAA paper.

Oh and for the record you should know the blog in question is Roger Pielke jr, whose background is political science, not climate science.

 

[mhaze]

....This is apparently what happened in the paper that mhaze referenced, where it is obvious that changes in the AK index lag changes in the temperature trend by at least a decade, making it unlikely that the AK index can be a measure of something that causes changes in the temperature trend.

Not at all. Read the paper and then comment.


Georgieva 2005

 

[mhaze]

He reaches conclusions that are not contained in the original paper.

Why? The conclusions in blog you linked to are theirs alone and have nothing to do with anything in the NOAA paper. ....

Who says?

He quotes three sections and comments.

The comments follow directly from the NOAA section.

Sounds like you just...don't like it and are throwing out six or ten minor issues. Think any of them might stick?