Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wangler]

Why? What do you imagine might have happened in the last decade that we didn't notice? Dramatic cooling in the Southern Hemisphere? Not from what I've heard.

So why do you wish this? I'm intrigued.

For many of these reconstructions, I would like to see the validation/calibration portion brought as close to the current year as possible, to bring in these last few years that have seen a slow down in warming.

 

[macdoc]

these last few years that have seen a slow down in warming.

what would that be,

a suspension of the laws of physics?

a misinterpretation of what GW is composed of?

or a purposeful oversight of the effect of back to back La Nina?

perhaps all of above.....

The physics don't stop, temperature is only one aspect of energy gain.....but do keep repeating the denier meme of slowed down.......it does limn your position rather more accurately than perhaps you wish......

 

[Wangler]

what would that be,

a suspension of the laws of physics?

a misinterpretation of what GW is composed of?

or a purposeful oversight of the effect of back to back La Nina?

perhaps all of above.....

The physics don't stop, temperature is only one aspect of energy gain.....but do keep repeating the denier meme of slowed down.......it does limn your position rather more accurately than perhaps you wish......

So you deny any slowing down of global warming? Apparently your "meme" doesn't allow?

 

[macdoc]

I don't think you understand GW....

Burying heat in the ocean is not a slow down - ( La nina )

A big volcano would be a slow down. ( Pinatubo )

Reflecting solar incoming would be a slow down ( as per a volcano ) - the jury is way way out on whether the current mix of anthro induced aerosols is a postive or negative forcing and by the ocean temps this last few months ( and not just in ENSO turf either ) it might tip towards positive feedback - that would be bad news.

When the net mass loss of glaciers stops then you might have a case for slow down of GW world wide.....

As it is, it's regional shifts......those temps in ocean and Australia are plus overlays on regional pooling, La Nina was minus overlay ( cold water convection/turn over )

Unless you suspend the laws of physics the carbon continues to accumulated as does the energy increase.....it just gets pumped about and converted by the various geo-systems - it does not slow or stop unless there is less solar incoming...

Energy is not just reflected in temperature....

Every year we add more carbon and every year that carbon increases the gain.....it does not reset

If we stopped all fossil carbon release right now the world would continue to warm....

Each year we add more carbon we increase the retention cumulative on the past.....

This is not hard to comprehend unless you have a bent towards wishful thinking of "tell me it ain't so".

The planet is retaining more energy We are primarily responsible through our release of fossil carbon

 

[Dancing David]

Things are weird all over, for sure:

Cold in Chicago

I heard on a commodity report that it is analogous to 1965, something about drought in India and a bunch of other factors.

 

[Wangler]

I don't think you understand GW....

Burying heat in the ocean is not a slow down - ( La nina )

A big volcano would be a slow down. ( Pinatubo )

Reflecting solar incoming would be a slow down ( as per a volcano ) - the jury is way way out on whether the current mix of anthro induced aerosols is a postive or negative forcing and by the ocean temps this last few months ( and not just in ENSO turf either ) it might tip towards positive feedback - that would be bad news.

When the net mass loss of glaciers stops then you might have a case for slow down of GW world wide.....

As it is, it's regional shifts......those temps in ocean and Australia are plus overlays on regional pooling, La Nina was minus overlay ( cold water convection/turn over )

Unless you suspend the laws of physics the carbon continues to accumulated as does the energy increase.....it just gets pumped about and converted by the various geo-systems - it does not slow or stop unless there is less solar incoming...

Energy is not just reflected in temperature....

Every year we add more carbon and every year that carbon increases the gain.....it does not reset

If we stopped all fossil carbon release right now the world would continue to warm....

Each year we add more carbon we increase the retention cumulative on the past.....

This is not hard to comprehend unless you have a bent towards wishful thinking of "tell me it ain't so".

The planet is retaining more energy We are primarily responsible through our release of fossil carbon

Mac,

Perhaps I should have been more precise in my verbage in response to CapelDodger:

"For many of these reconstructions, I would like to see the validation/calibration portion brought as close to the current year as possible, to bring in these last few years that have seen a slow down in warming global temperature increases."

I thought that what I meant was understood, as we were talking about temperature reconstructions.

 

[Wangler]

- it does not slow or stop unless there is less solar incoming...

Lucky for us, this is the case.

 

[DogB]

I would have been surprised given the double La Nina influences....

But we're in El Nino? You've been telling us for months.

This year tho the oceans are cooking....depends on how the heat pump plays out

Cooking? Did you mean cooling?

I think there is so much warm Pacific water sweeping through the opening Arctic channels now that it's past the tipping point for any recovery of mulit-year ice.

Oh please. It takes multiple years to recover multi year ice. This year there was more ice than last year and last year there was more than the year before. That's all you can say.

There are already some Pacific species across in the North Atlantic...

Reference? I’ve seen lots of people warning that this will happen. I’ve yet to see any real evidence of it happening.

 

[mhaze]

But we're in El Nino? You've been telling us for months.

Cooking? Did you mean cooling?.....

Yes, we are serving the Earth chilled this decade.

Here.

Have a sample.

It's delicious.

 

[macdoc]

connecting the dots....

Sept. 6, 2009 The Age Of Megafires

Expert: Warming Climate Fueling Megafires

snip

60 Minutes joined up with Tom Boatner, who after 30 years on the fire line, became chief of fire operations for the federal government.

"A fire of this size and this intensity in this country would have been extremely rare 15, 20 years they're commonplace these days," Boatner says.

"Ten years ago, if you had a 100,000 acre fire, you were talking about a huge fire. And if we had one or two of those a year, that was probably unusual. Now we talk about 200,000 acre fires like it's just another day at the office. It's been a huge change," he adds.

Asked what the biggest fires now are, Boatner says, "We've had, I believe, two fires this summer that have been over 500,000 acres, half a million acres, and one of those was over 600,000 acres."

"You wouldn't have expected to see this how recently?" Pelley asks.

"We got records going back to 1960 of the acres burned in America. So, that's 47 fire seasons. Seven of the 10 busiest fire seasons have been since 1999," Boatner says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/60minutes/main3380176.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

 

[Wangler]

connecting the dots....

snip
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/60minutes/main3380176.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

This is a rehash of an episode first aired in 2007

 

[mhaze]

This is a rehash of an episode first aired in 2007

Good dot work.

 

[BenBurch]

MHaze, you declare "global warming is over" based on a couple of years (at the bottom of the solar cycle) and yet no amount of sustained trend in the other direction is ever proof for you. Fundamentally dishonest. Sorry, that is why I have stopped participating here; You are just not discussing this in an honest way.

 

[Geckko]

MHaze, you declare "global warming is over" based on a couple of years (at the bottom of the solar cycle) and yet no amount of sustained trend in the other direction is ever proof for you. Fundamentally dishonest. Sorry, that is why I have stopped participating here; You are just not discussing this in an honest way.

But it can't be a solar affect. This is from the IPCC. Solar irradiance is 1/10 the estimated raidative forcing of CO2.

 

[macdoc]

Geckko the variation within in an 11 year solar cycle tho is up to 25% of the warming so the bottom of a solar cycle and double La Nina gives denidiots numbers they like to flaunt.

We are also drifting towards a cooler clime orbitally but that is a very slow forcing.

 

[BenBurch]

You SEE the solar cycle in TREE RINGS. Of course it has a cyclical effect.

 

[Geckko]

Geckko the variation within in an 11 year solar cycle tho is up to 25% of the warming so the bottom of a solar cycle and double La Nina gives denidiots numbers they like to flaunt.

We are also drifting towards a cooler clime orbitally but that is a very slow forcing.

I suppose I was thinking of the Maunder minimum, which extended into the early 18th century.

You see the chart estimates natural forcing from 1750-2005. So from close to the Maunder minimum up to today virtually no net effect.

And if there was no net contribution from Maunder (historical absolute bottom of solar activity) to modern times, the implications should pretty muted on shorter times scales for 11 year cycles.

 

[Wangler]

MHaze, you declare "global warming is over" based on a couple of years (at the bottom of the solar cycle) and yet no amount of sustained trend in the other direction is ever proof for you.

Regardless of what MHaze believes, this sentance hits at the heart of this thread, I think....

...if I am not mistaken, projections were such that a deep solar minimum and perhaps other ENSO effects were not predicted to be enough to counteract anthropogenic forcings to any significant degree.

 

[macdoc]

How could you possibly predict the strength of a ENSO event

Give it a rest - the physics don't stop just because you bury the heat....

ENSO events are NOT drivers....

Solar cycle is a driver
C02 is a driver
Methane is a driver
Volcanos are a driver


Ocean cycles are NOT

 

[lomiller]

Solar forcing over the 11 year solar cycle very small, and to my knowledge no direct global relationship has ever been found. There have been a couple interesting papers in the last year or two on indirect regional cycles that seem to have some correlation to solar cycles, but it’s probably too soon to call these conclusive in any way. If these hold up, they would essentially be due to the 11 year solar cycle hitting a resonant frequency in some regional phenomenon and probably have little impact on global temperature averages.

As for “cooling”, last years La Nina put global temperatures only a tiny amount below the long term (30+ year) trend. 1998 came within a whisker of going above the 99% confidence interval in the long term trends, and stayed well above the longer term trend line for several years. With this as a starring point any point near the long term trend is bound to be flat.