Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

so the deniosphere wakes up to asymmetrical response, energy transforms and flows and now thinks ENSO et al are the primary driver...is C02 a driver?

No, scientists whom you disparage study, and attempt to quantify these energy flux. From the 3rd reference:
In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring "warming in the pipeline." Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
Through such efforts the end goal is some level of ability to predict climate. Which Tsonis in the first link did, apparently. Douglass in the third addresses the same topic:

Why is it that recent climate observations disagree with predictions?
 

A fourth reference.

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.
With reference to your rhetorical question, "is C02 a driver? ..." What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen?
Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.
 
Last edited:
Fifth reference (final for this matter).

COOLING OF THE GLOBAL OCEAN SINCE 2003

Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)

ABSTRACT
Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.
One can only conclude that the mystery heat of CO2 forcing is being radiated down into and completely absorbed by undersea volcanos, from where one day it shall rise up with a vengence and wreak havoc.

Reference Summary Ocean Heat Balance

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
Tsonis, Swanson, Kravtsov 2007

Has the climate recently shifted?
Swanson, Tsonis 2009

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

Douglass 2009

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
2009

COOLING OF THE GLOBAL OCEAN SINCE 2003
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. 2009
 
Thanks mhaze. Some stuff there I hadn’t read.

What’s your take on the final paragraph of the Swanson paper?

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].
 
:popcorn1

Meanwhile it's not just the ocean setting records.....

http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/13/nasa-giss-second-hottest-july-on-record/

••••

Lindzen???

:dl:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

snip

And indeed, Lindzen chose to abandon what little is left of his professional reputation, as the astonishing report on the conference from Examiner.com makes clear:


The conference also featured Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said his colleagues endorse climate change to win acclaim.

“Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming,” Lindzen said. “The important point, however, is that the science that they do, that I respect, is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.”

Yes, the atmospheric scientists Lindzen “respects” all lie to the public about what they believe just to make their lives easier. That doesn’t sound like a single scientist I have ever met in my life. I’d love to talk to some of those scientists and see if the single one of them respects Lindzen.

Lindzen called out colleagues such as Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, whose work, Lindzen said, “clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.“

And so Richard Lindzen — a man who would be unknown to the public, with no “acclaim” whatsoever, if not for his denial of our basic understanding of climate science — accuses one of the nation’s preeminent climate scientists of lying to the public for fame and money. I’d also note that back in 1995, journalist Ross Gelbspan explained in Harpers that it is Lindzen who is far more richly rewarded for spreading anti-science than Broecker ever has been before explaining science: “Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services.

Careful with the denier swill DogB - ..pretty funky at this point. Must be the heat....

....:garfield:
 
Last edited:
:popcorn1Lindzen???:dl:....:garfield:
Put your thinking hat on.

With reference to your rhetorical question, "is C02 a driver? ..." What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen in the GRL journal?

Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.

Thanks mhaze. Some stuff there I hadn’t read.

What’s your take on the final paragraph of the Swanson paper?
If natural variability is the cause of the 1970s "cool period", then the aerosol effect is over rated, and CO2 sensitivity is lower compared to typical model parameters. The upper limit on CO2 sensitivity is bounded by the lack of warming for the period of consideration.

Self criticism, and noting limits of the work, as well as possible alternate conclusions, is the mark of good scientific work. For this reason I have no problem with the paragraph you allude to. In any case, synchronized chaos theory leads to a radically different conceptualization of climate drivers than the current group of AGW concepts.

Don't think Swanson's possible caveat of "high variability = high sensitivity to man's forcing" is likely to hold true, but that's only my opinion.

NOTE: All five of the articles listed are by scientists who will provide data, procedures, program code and methods as is required to replicate, and validate (Or invalidate) their conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Don't think Swanson's possible caveat of "high variability = high sensitivity to man's forcing" is likely to hold true, but that's only my opinion.

Mine too I think. It's an interesting idea but I don’t see that ‘highly variable’ and ‘somewhat constrained’ are necessarily mutually exclusive states.
 
It's called excursions and given the feedback mechanisms it indeed is likely to be true.

Stability is the exception in climate not the norm, we've built humanity on period of relatively stable climate ( unlike the end of the last ice age when the Neanderthals died out when climate was anything BUT stable ).

We have destabilized the climate regime in a very short period of time and await the consequences to come and endure the consequences now...:garfield:

There are impacts small and large....now..

http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/saveoursyrup.php

snip

In Vermont, where 60 percent of Northeastern syrup runs, tappers have begun collecting sap a full month ahead of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. The maple syrup industry is an integral part of the economy and the way of life there and elsewhere in the Northeast.

We can cope to a point, biome not quite so flexible, combined with our other predations on biodiversity....not a promising future...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.asp

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23984420-7583,00.html

Fine words.....little action...:garfield:
 
Actually much of that stuff was pretty carefully worded. Nothing hugely controversial.....
Don't be so sure about that.

As of mid 2006 (closing date for AR4)

  • The PDO reversal was not and could not have been incorporated into AR4, since it was announced by NASA in 2008.
  • The Argos floats had not started producing data.
A simple question: What changes in the state of understanding of the science since IPCC AR4 2007 do these five articles indicate?

Mine too I think. It's an interesting idea but I don’t see that ‘highly variable’ and ‘somewhat constrained’ are necessarily mutually exclusive states.
Figured out what bothered me about these conceptual paradimns. They may not be correct interpretations of causality when considering climate as a system of synchronized chaos.

The tendency to think or enumerate causality and probability in terms of linear relationships is very, very strong.
 


What does the last sentence of this paper say and do you agree with it?

just checking

edited to add, I see you have answered this before, although not very well in my opinion, as I don't believe for a second Tsonis and Swanson are being self critical here, nor are they alluding to possible alternative explanations for the observations. They are merely stating the obvious facts, that the climate is variable and warming.
 
Last edited:
What does the last sentence of this paper say and do you agree with it?

just checking

edited to add, I see you have answered this before, although not very well in my opinion, as I don't believe for a second Tsonis and Swanson are being self critical here, nor are they alluding to possible alternative explanations for the observations. They are merely stating the obvious facts, that the climate is variable and warming.
I suggest that if you do other than to look at scientific articles' actual findings, you can make no progress in understanding; further, that by looking at the findings of these five articles in total, some progress can be made at this time.

Just for fun, I pose to you the question MacDoc avoids.

With reference to your rhetorical question, "is C02 a driver? ..." What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen?

Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.
 
Last edited:
It's called excursions and given the feedback mechanisms it indeed is likely to be true.

We differ in opinion here but you could well be right.

Stability is the exception in climate not the norm, we've built humanity on period of relatively stable climate

Replace the word ‘humanity’ with ‘our current civilisation’ and I have no argument.

(unlike the end of the last ice age when the Neanderthals died out when climate was anything BUT stable ).

Neanderthals were out competed either physically or genetically by modern humans. Climate almost certainly had little to do with their disappearance. I’m sure to people of the time their climate felt quite stable. It’s only with the benefits of long term perception that the ‘instability’ of the world climate system becomes obvious.

We have destabilized the climate regime in a very short period of time and await the consequences to come and endure the consequences now...:garfield:

Arguable


A five year old article about maple syrup. A search on recent articles on this subject reveals that the last few seasons have been late and short.

We can cope to a point, biome not quite so flexible,

Wanna bet. :)


I’m sorry but I’m yet to be convinced about this sort of modelling.


An article by our prime minister. That’s great. I voted for the guy and I have a ton of respect for him.

little action...:garfield:

Can’t really blame the guy. He has a hostile senate and he’s doing his best to work around them. The last emissions trading scheme he proposed was voted down by the Liberal party for being too ambitious and by the Greens for being not ambitious enough. Go figure.

On the other hand he managed to push through a renewable energy bill recently that I thought was inspirational.
 
A simple question: What changes in the state of understanding of the science since IPCC AR4 2007 do these five articles indicate?

I don't think even macdoc would seriously argue that the science has moved on since then.

If I had to make a thumb suck guess I’d suggest that if the IPCC sat again today they’d widen the quoted range for sensitivity. The IPCC by their nature is very scientifically conservative.

Figured out what bothered me about these conceptual paradimns. They may not be correct interpretations of causality when considering climate as a system of synchronized chaos.

The tendency to think or enumerate causality and probability in terms of linear relationships is very, very strong.

I’m not convinced about the synchronized chaos hypothesis (mainly because I don’t understand it), but misinterpretation of causality is an all too common problem in pretty much every field of scientific endeavour – I don’t imagine that climate science is immune.
 
Last edited:
I don't think even macdoc would seriously argue that the science has moved on since then.

If I had to make a thumb suck guess I’d suggest that if the IPCC sat again today they’d widen the quoted range for sensitivity. The IPCC by their nature is very scientifically conservative.
Admitting to a wider range would be some sort of admission that we don't know much about the feedbacks.

I’m not convinced about the synchronized chaos hypothesis (mainly because I don’t understand it), but misinterpretation of causality is an all too common problem in pretty much every field of scientific endeavour – I don’t imagine that climate science is immune.

The concept that the 1970s cool period can be explained by natural factors means that the aerosol sensitivity is much lower than has been assumed. The reason the sensitivity was tuned high was to create the "1970s cool period" against a backdrop of the marching forward of CO2 heating. With the 2000 era, again temperatures diverge from model predictions.

This time climate modelers don't have an aerosol factor to tune to fix the problem. Hence the subject of this thread, and my introducing these few articles at this time as explanatory. Yes the synchronized chaos argument is technical, but we should note that from it emerges a predictive capability.

Tsonis is doing better for the 2000-2009 period on accurate prediction than the computer models with their tuned parameters.
 
Admitting to a wider range would be some sort of admission that we don't know much about the feedbacks.

IPCC never hesitates to admit poor understanding of an effect. They’ve been open about lack of knowledge of cloud effects for some time now. I doubt they’d hesitate to turn an increased level of complexity into larger error bars.

The concept that the 1970s cool period can be explained by natural factors means that the aerosol sensitivity is much lower than has been assumed. The reason the sensitivity was tuned high was to create the "1970s cool period" against a backdrop of the marching forward of CO2 heating. With the 2000 era, again temperatures diverge from model predictions.

This time climate modelers don't have an aerosol factor to tune to fix the problem. Hence the subject of this thread, and my introducing these few articles at this time as explanatory. Yes the synchronized chaos argument is technical, but we should note that from it emerges a predictive capability.

Tsonis is doing better for the 2000-2009 period on accurate prediction than the computer models with their tuned parameters.

We’ll know for certain how accurate he is in 2072. ;)
 
Repeating the same crap over and over mHaze does not make it any more valid....

Global dimming due to aerosols was measurable as was the clearing in the 1990s - nothing in that says anything material about AGW beyond anthro bought us a bit of time thanks to aerosols...as did the ozone damage.

S02 signal is known from volcanoes. There is no mystery there. S02 along with other particulates were cleaned up post 70s in Europe and North America.

The nonsense about 1998 to 2008 is pathetic.....no model anticipates a peak El Nino to peak double La Nina and those events say nothing about AGW - they are natural variations not drivers....

C02 is a driver - you can dodge and duck all you want but until you alter the laws of physics in some other universe you are stuck with that fact.

The deniosphere is turning into the walking dead at this point...time to bury the desiccated meme and get on with the issues that arise from the reality of a warming planet.
 
The nonsense about 1998 to 2008 is pathetic.....

And as you've been told (again and again), no skeptic worth his/her salt does this. Certainly the period mhaze and I are considering is 2000 to current.

C02 is a driver - you can dodge and duck all you want but until you alter the laws of physics in some other universe you are stuck with that fact.

A fact nobody is denying. I think you'd be better served to discuss the point we’re actually arguing rather than the one you'd prefer us to.

The deniosphere is turning into the walking dead at this point...time to bury the desiccated meme and get on with the issues that arise

You're quite welcome to stop arguing. I choose to do otherwise.

from the reality of a warming planet.

Which for nearly the last decade hasn't actually warmed at all. Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why that is?

Hell even the current El Nino is fizzing out. Doesn’t that at least pique your interest a little?
 
Which for nearly the last decade hasn't actually warmed at all. Aren't you even the least bit curious as to why that is?
Wow you've sure drunk the Koolaid. Suspended the laws of physics again I see.....brilliant - Nobel worthy even....:mgbanghead

The oceans are hotter than they've been since record keeping began and coming off a back to back La Nina and you make that claim....

:dl:

El Nino has barely started.....you've got a lot of learning to do..

[FONT=verdana,arial]Synopsis: El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere Winter 2009-2010. [/FONT]
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

hanging around the denidiot sites again...

Global Climate Statistics The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the second warmest on record, behind 2005, with 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average of 59.9°F (15.5°C).


Separately, the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06°F (0.59°C) above the 20th century average of 61.5°F (16.4°C).


Each hemisphere broke its June record for warmest ocean surface temperature. In the Northern Hemisphere, the warm anomaly of 1.17°F (0.65°C) surpassed the previous record of 1.12°F (0.62°C), set in 2005. The Southern Hemisphere's increase of 0.99°F (0.55°C) exceeded the old record of 0.92 degree F (0.51°C), set in 1998.


The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26°F (0.70°C) above the 20th century average of 55.9°F (13.3°C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/jun09.html

You keep drinking that Koolaid - you're gonna need it.....:garfield:

It's not like it's JUST El Nino either....

Aug 20th
Oceans everywhere smash heat records
By Seth Borenstein, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - July was the hottest month for the world's oceans in almost 130 years of record-keeping.

Meteorologists said there is a combination of forces at work: A natural El Nino weather pattern just getting started on top of worsening manmade global warming, and a dash of random weather variations. Already the resulting ocean heat is harming threatened coral reefs. It also could hasten the melting of Arctic sea ice and help hurricanes strengthen.

The Gulf of Mexico, where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temperatures dancing around 90 degrees (32 Celsius). Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been considerably warmer than normal. The Mediterranean is about three degrees warmer than normal. Higher temperatures rule in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

The phenomenon is most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees (5.5 Celsius) above average. The tongues of warm water could help melt sea ice from below and even cause thawing of ice sheets on Greenland, said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Earth Science and Observation Center at the University of Colorado.

Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land, because water takes longer to heat up and does not cool as easily as land.

"This warm water we're seeing doesn't just disappear next year; it'll be around for a long time," said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia. It takes five times more energy to warm water than land
and even more than that to lose the ice mass

One of the largest glaciers in Antarctica is thinning four times faster than it was 10 years ago, according to research seen by the BBC.
A study of satellite measurements of Pine Island glacier in west Antarctica reveals the surface of the ice is now dropping at a rate of up to 16m a year.
Since 1994, the glacier has lowered by as much as 90m, which has serious implications for sea-level rise.

Calculations based on the rate of melting 15 years ago had suggested the glacier would last for 600 years. But the new data points to a lifespan for the vast ice stream of only another 100 years.
http://www.squarestate.net/diary/8497/bbc-antarctic-glacier-melting-exponentially-faster

Do try and keep up....
 
Summary

CO2 is a driver....remarkable insight - well known for 130 years.:rolleyes:

C02 is cumulative and increased from 2000 to 2008 - easily verified

Now suspend the laws of physics and CO2 stops being a driver since, according to you , there has been no energy gain since 2000.....it all stopped....:boggled:
Tho even the WSJ that bastion of science would beg to differ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085070980447477.html#printMode

Interesting circle to square....:popcorn1

Now out of the blue - pardon the pun - with no warning whatsover ( in your view of course since it all stopped back in Y2K ), bang - the oceans bust records all over the globe even far outside the ENSO zone of activity.
Remarkable physics.....

and someone forgot to inform the glaciers of the suspension but hell that's minor ...

One wonders what the last year of the chosen decade will see.....:garfield:
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom