Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Wangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course they weren't, and they didn't!

The warming signal is SUMMED with the signal of normal episodic variation. It is a BIAS.

If I have a sine wave that has a 3 volt swing, and I provide a half volt positive bias to it, of course the signal can reach a value of less than half a volt, and it does every cycle. Only when my bias is greater than +3 volts will the signal not reach zero volts.

Clear?
 
ioMiller
Solar forcing over the 11 year solar cycle very small, and to my knowledge no direct global relationship has ever been found.
Click to expand...
snip
Solar Cycle Linked To Global Climate

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2009) — Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean
Click to expand...
They found that, as the sun's output reaches a peak, the small amount of extra sunshine over several years causes a slight increase in local atmospheric heating, especially across parts of the tropical and subtropical Pacific where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce.
That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing extra water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains.
As this climatic loop intensifies, the trade winds strengthen. That keeps the eastern Pacific even cooler and drier than usual, producing La Niña-like conditions.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm

The loop magnifies the affect

Doesn't change squat about C02 forcing...just one more overlay....
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given that I with few exceptions refuse to discuss events or implications of phenomena shorter than climatic, that being 30 year average, and given that you focus on very short term phenomena such as the last day's sea ice...

Your statements have little merit.
 
BenBurch said:
Of course they weren't, and they didn't!

The warming signal is SUMMED with the signal of normal episodic variation. It is a BIAS.

If I have a sine wave that has a 3 volt swing, and I provide a half volt positive bias to it, of course the signal can reach a value of less than half a volt, and it does every cycle. Only when my bias is greater than +3 volts will the signal not reach zero volts.

Clear?
Click to expand...

Crystal.

Again, perhaps I wasn't precise enough in my post. Let me try again:

...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, even over short time periods.

But, it appears as if natural forcings (we certainly haven't cut back on CO2 emissions) have resulted in global temperatures anomalies which have remained pretty much constant since 2005.

I
 
Wangler said:
But, it appears as if natural forcings (we certainly haven't cut back on CO2 emissions) have resulted in global temperatures anomalies which have remained pretty much constant since 2005.

I
Click to expand...

The natural variation in global temperatures for a given year can be as much as +/- 0.5 deg C. The long term trend (using the GISS 1951-1980 baseline) places 2010 at around +0.6 deg, but any value between +0.1 and +1.1 can reasonable be expected for a given year. Not since 1998 have these boundaries been pushed in either direction.

2008 was +0.54, which is below that long term trend but only marginally so. 2002 – 2007 we all at or above +0.6 as has been every month so far in 2009 save Mar.
 
lomiller said:
The natural variation in global temperatures for a given year can be as much as +/- 0.5 deg C. The long term trend (using the GISS 1951-1980 baseline) places 2010 at around +0.6 deg, but any value between +0.1 and +1.1 can reasonable be expected for a given year. Not since 1998 have these boundaries been pushed in either direction.

2008 was +0.54, which is below that long term trend but only marginally so. 2002 – 2007 we all at or above +0.6 as has been every month so far in 2009 save Mar.
Click to expand...

But if we assume there is a bias from CO2 forcing, when do you think will we see it rear it's ugly head again?

IPCC is adamant that the recent warming trends are caused primarily by man-made forcings.
 
Wangler - the physics of C02 simply dictate there is more energy each year.

Whether it is temporarily masked by an ocean turn over or enhanced by a Indian Ocean pooling is immaterial....the latter are not forcing....

Energy retention showing up specifically as temperature is really minor in the scheme of change.....if you focused it all on the cryosphere there would be no temperature change - perhaps even a drop ( cold water into the ocean ) as the latent heat absorbed the energy.

Unless you want to chase phantom cosmic ray forcing like some others here, there IS no other explanation and in addition you would have to prove why the very physics that keep the planet habitable all of a sudden cease to function.....

Not a very viable position....

Recommendation....don't focus on global average temperatures but rather on excursion frequency and duration and changes in the crysophere

Increased energy shows up in a variety of transforms not just temperature.

A T-storm alone should demonstrate the various transforms from a warming moist surface, evaporation, rain, wind, hail all the result of a hot spot on the land form kicking off....

The two large gaps in the last IPCC concerned ice cover in the Arctic and the impact of aerosols.... ( since there are various types of aerosols it's very complex, some are known negative drivers ( S02 in the stratosphere and some like carbon black known positives due to albedo shifts in the north.)

The interplay of aerosols with clouds looks to be positive feedback according to a recent paper - that's bad news...

This year and next may be bad news if the slow down in economic activity clears the S02 as the clean up did in North America and Europe and we get a n El Nino of some strength - nasty mix and given how high the ocean temps are....we could see some very wide excursions on land as a result in a number of categories in the next two years.....that's a lot energy when say the Mediterranean is 3 degrees C above normal....

Tremendous power in that for local weather excursions....

The NAO is shifting as well....interesting times....
 
Wangler said:
But if we assume there is a bias from CO2 forcing, when do you think will we see it rear it's ugly head again?
Click to expand...

What do you mean “again”? The long term trend line goes though ~0.40 deg C in 1998 and ~0.6 deg C in 2010 due to CO2 forcing.
 
Wangler said:
Crystal.

Again, perhaps I wasn't precise enough in my post. Let me try again:

...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, even over short time periods.

But, it appears as if natural forcings (we certainly haven't cut back on CO2 emissions) have resulted in global temperatures anomalies which have remained pretty much constant since 2005.

I
Click to expand...
Umm, I've attributed this to the PDO (if you like , consider it a summation of ENSO stuff) and ignored the projections which you mention, thinking they were ridiculous.

Just assume a far lower CO2 sensitivity net of feedbacks and it all makes sense.






 
mhaze said:
Just assume a far lower CO2 sensitivity net of feedbacks and it all makes sense.
Click to expand...


All of it except ice ages, the medieval warm period, the little ice age and, well, just about everything really
 
lomiller said:
All of it except ice ages, the medieval warm period, the little ice age and, well, just about everything really
Click to expand...
More to the topic, less to the derail attempt :

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/mojib-latif-warns-ipcc-of-cooling.html

It is actually a heresy among the IPCC members to even think about the possibility that 10-20 years in the future won't see any discernible global warming - despite the fact that this is precisely what has happened in the previous 10 years (and even 15 years, when you insist on statistical significance).

The bulk of these people is completely detached from reality. I think that they must either literally believe that it is strictly impossible for another decade of no-warming or cooling to take place; or they must believe that they're able to prevent the remaining 6.8 billion people from noticing or talking about the fact if it becomes a fact by 2019 or 2029.
 
lomiller said:
What do you mean “again”? The long term trend line goes though ~0.40 deg C in 1998 and ~0.6 deg C in 2010 due to CO2 forcing.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the long term trend line from IPCC? Or some other temperature plot?
 
It’s not the “IPCC tend line” it’s simply the 30 year trend in the dataset. While this can vary a bit based on exactly how the trend was calculated it won’t change very much.
 
macdoc said:
Wangler about the only time GW stopped recently is Pinatubo where the actual amount of incoming radiation was knocked down.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/727

Excepting that, the physics don't quit.

Volcanoes can have very long term effects

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7077/full/439675a.html
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean..the physics didn't quit then either...the volcano acted to reduce the net uptake of energy by the planet by blocking some solar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom