Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[greybeard]

No evidence for either claim.

Nor any explanation for why you say it. See? No source needed. You can just make things up.

I gave you a link in post 3445.

And here is another one.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

The observed cooling of the upper atmosphere in recent decades is strong evidence that the warming at Earth's surface is due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. It should also give us additional confidence in the climate models, since they predicted that this upper atmospheric cooling would occur.

 

[r-j]

I think the Astronomer should find out first what Climate scientists have published, rather make **** up.

That is a claim. If you have evidence that he is wrong, and you are right, put it out there.

stop trying to move the goalposts.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
Those who still want to tell you it's still warming, faster than ever, they are science deniers.

I have evidence to the contrary..and it has been presented numerous times

your statement is factually incorrect - it is still warming and you are denying it.

•••

Going with the wind
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science El Nino Instrumental Record Oceans — group @ 17 February 2014
A new paper in Nature Climate Change out this week by England and others joins a number of other recent papers seeking to understand the climate dynamics that have led to the so-called “slowdown” in global warming. As we and others have pointed out previously (e.g. here), the fact that global average temperatures can deviate for a decade or longer from the long term trend comes as no surprise. Moreover, it’s not even clear that the deviation has been as large as is commonly assumed (as discussed e.g. in the Cowtan and Way study earlier this year), and has little statistical significance in any case. Nevertheless, it’s still interesting, and there is much to be learned about the climate system from studying the details.

Several studies have shown that much of the excess heating of the planet due to the radiative imbalance from ever-increasing greenhouses gases has gone into the ocean, rather than the atmosphere (see e.g. Foster and Rahmstorf and Balmaseda et al.).
In their new paper, England et al. show that this increased ocean heat uptake — which has occurred mostly in the tropical Pacific — is associated with an anomalous strengthening of the trade winds. Stronger trade winds push warm surface water towards the west, and bring cold deeper waters to the surface to replace them. This raises the thermocline (boundary between warm surface water and cold deep water), and increases the amount of heat stored in the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. Indeed, this is what happens every time there is a major La Niña event, which is why it is globally cooler during La Niña years. One could think of the last ~15 years or so as a long term “La-Niña-like” anomaly (punctuated, of course, by actual El Niño (like the exceptionally warm years 1998, 2005) and La Niña events (like the relatively cool 2011).

A very consistent understanding is thus emerging of the coupled ocean and atmosphere dynamics that have caused the recent decadal-scale departure from the longer-term global warming trend. That understanding suggests that the “slowdown” in warming is unlikely to continue, as England explains in his guest post, below. –Eric Steig

continues
http://www.realclimate.org

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11579.html

"The long-term variability and trends in global-mean temperatures for the uppermost SSU channel (SSU channel 3) are relatively similar in both the Met Office and NOAA data sets. But the same cannot be said for the SSU channels that sample the middle stratosphere (SSU channels 1 and 2). The global-mean cooling in channels 1 and 2 (around 25–45km) is nearly twice as large in the NOAA dataset as it is in the Met Office data set (Figs 1 and 2)"

Stratospheric cooling in both datasets, but more so by the later (NOAA) processing method. There's your evidence, which you knew about already. Perhaps you could just cut straight to the chase in future.

 

[CapelDodger]

The recent slowdown in global surface warming is fully explainable by natural fluctuations in the Pacific ocean. And to be clear, when leading climate scientists speak of a "hiatus" or "pause" in warming what they are referring to is the fact that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature since the late 1990s is less than that of previous decades. The average rate of warming was 0.17°C/decade from 1970-1998, and 0.04°C/decade from 1998-2012 (note, a climate relevant period would actually be 1970 - 2000, or 1983 - 2003 from which we can easily calculate a new per decade increase rate if you'd like?

A difference of 0.13°C/decade between the two periods, the later of which spans a phase-shift from warm to cool in the PDO. A decade seems long enough for the cool phase to become fully realised, there being no shortage of La Ninas this century.

The question is, do the warm and cool PDO phases vary by as much as 0.13°C? It doesn't sound unreasonable to me; any further enlightenment would be appreciated.

If the cool phase has been fully realised then there'll be no more temperature effect from that source and the trend from 1998 (for what that's worh, which isn't much) will begin to edge up even with more La Ninas in future.

 

[Reality Check]

I gave you a link in post 3445.

There is also the related climate skeptic myth about "Satellites show no warming in the troposphere" (the upper upper atmosphere!) which is answered here: Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Satellite measurements do show warming in the Tropsphere when a cooling bias from the Stratosphere is removed. Warming trends agree well with surface temperatures and model predictions except near the Poles. Differences between various analyses are largely due to analysis techniques and compensations for satellite data issues.

with a comprehensive explanation of the "satellite data issues" and plenty of citations of the literature.
Pity r-j will miss out on this science because he never reads blog posts!

ETA: Stratospheric Temperature Change section of The human fingerprint in global warming

As the lower atmosphere warms due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, the upper atmosphere is expected to cool as a consequence. The simple way to think about this is that greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Since less heat is released into the upper atmosphere (starting with the stratosphere), it cools.

Jones et al. (2003) investigated the changes in temperature over the past 4 decades at both the near surface (troposphere) and stratosphere layers, and compare them to changes predicted by a coupled atmosphere/ocean general circulation model, HadCM3. They concluded as follows.
"Our results strengthen the case for an anthropogenic influence on climate. Unlike previous studies we attribute observed decadal-mean temperature changes both to anthropogenic emissions, and changes in stratospheric volcanic aerosols. The temperature response to change in solar irradiance is also detected but with a lower confidence than the other forcings."

Quoted in full since r-j cannot be bothered to read blog entries to find the citations to the scientific literature.

 

[Trakar]

A difference of 0.13°C/decade between the two periods, the later of which spans a phase-shift from warm to cool in the PDO. A decade seems long enough for the cool phase to become fully realised, there being no shortage of La Ninas this century.

The question is, do the warm and cool PDO phases vary by as much as 0.13°C? It doesn't sound unreasonable to me; any further enlightenment would be appreciated.

If the cool phase has been fully realised then there'll be no more temperature effect from that source and the trend from 1998 (for what that's worh, which isn't much) will begin to edge up even with more La Ninas in future.

While the PDO is a big issue, I suspect that much of this is related to a variety of factors, not the least of which is a careful selection of data cycle starts and ends. I'm sure that if we looked carefully enough over the last 50 years, we could likely find both max extreme and min extreme decades that would exceed max of the 1970 - 1998 period and min of 1998-2012 period. As mentioned up thread, if we count 1999-2012 the increase was 0.13C. It was the size of the rate anomaly in 1998 that most skews the perspective of the subsequent rate increases.

 

[a_unique_person]

That is a claim. If you have evidence that he is wrong, and you are right, put it out there.

stop trying to move the goalposts.

You made the claim. I can't see any evidence to support it.

 

[macdoc]

RC

There is also the related climate skeptic myth about "Satellites show no warming in the troposphere" (the upper upper atmosphere!)

That is incorrect....the troposphere is below the stratosphere...even in your linked article

Here are the layers
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/layers.htm

•••

Just to clarify
A cooler stratosphere is a consequence of less IR coming from the troposphere below it due to additional C02 and other GHG.

 

[CapelDodger]

As mentioned up thread, if we count 1999-2012 the increase was 0.13C. It was the size of the rate anomaly in 1998 that most skews the perspective of the subsequent rate increases.

It certainly is a fragile result (as opposed to robust; "gracile" doesn't seem quite appropriate ), which is only to be expected for such a short period, let alone one starting from an outlier. For what it's worth, though (and the denialati apparently think it's worth the world), 0.13C including the PDO phase-shift suggests a difference between warm and cold phases on the order of 0.04C.

Mike Mann on the possibility that the PDO is stuck on cold
Global Warming Speed Bump? The Answer May Be Blowing in the Wind!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/global-warming-speed-bump_b_4756711.html :

"The $64,000 question, then, is whether this increased tendency for La Niña-like conditions over the past decade is entirely natural in origin, or whether it might instead in some way be tied to climate change itself. If we are simply witnessing a temporary natural excursion that is part of an internal oscillation in the climate system, then things might easily turn around in the years ahead. Just as we are getting lulled into a sort of false complacency about the rate of global warming, we may be caught by surprise as the natural oscillation swings in the other direction, and the globe warms even faster than the models predict it should.

On the other hand, if we are instead seeing a subtle effect of global warming in which increased greenhouse gas concentrations are, seemingly paradoxically, favoring the colder La Niña state of the climate system, then future global warming might end up being just a bit less than many of the current climate models are predicting. Keep in mind that the effect in question only amounts to at most one or two tenths of a degree C, and business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions are likely to warm the globe by 4-5C (7-9F) by the end of the century. So we're talking about a very minor correction. But nonetheless, it would potentially constitute a small additional negative feedback in the climate system, and a slight mitigation of future warming in comparison with what prevailing climate models currently project."

Which suggests "one or two tenths of a degree C" as the difference, which is about a decade of AGW.

 

[macdoc]

That would be very good news and something I've suspected is more vertical mixing bringing cooler water to the surface but did not consider wind as a factor in that

There seems to be more neutral and La Nina. in the past decade after the 1998 anomaly.

 

[Trakar]

For any who happen to be online right now, C-Span3 is airing the Senate Climate change panel. It is currently 1 hour into a 3 hour program, still going through the panel opening comments, and no real surprises but it is interesting to hear each senator personally state their perspectives on this issue.

 

[macdoc]

Summary expected

 

[Trakar]

Summary expected

Not much of news, though it is good to see such panels happening. It was primarily a platform for the head of the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and GSA to speak about their opinion of the Obama administrations climate change plans.

Went about as could be expected here is a link to the version that all can review. The deniers manage to stamp their denier cards and the rational people seem amazed to the point of befuddlement that the delusional boldly and proudly assert their delusions and are patting each other on the back for being strong in their delusions.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?317244-1/administration-defends-climate-change-plan

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't read blogs. Nobody seems honest or even a real scientist on most of them. Obvious agendas.

Where do you come up with all these crackpot, non mainstream "papers"?

 

[Mikemcc]

If I was to take a guess I'd say WUWT... but R-J insists he doesn't read blogs...

 

[r-j]

A lot has happened since last August, including Cowton and Way, so we know ther has been no hiatus and the trend continues upward.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
You can say it kept rising until the cows come home. It ain't going to make it true.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your claim. And by evidence, that means peer reviewed papers published in real science publications.

 

[r-j]

Colder winters are a prediction of climate models!

Still waiting for any evidence to support that false claim.

 

[r-j]

Where do you come up with all these crackpot, non mainstream "papers"?

Which ones do you consider crackpot science? The Nature ones, or the Science ones?

It’s a fascinating paradox: global warming as the culprit for bone-chilling cold.

“It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling,” write five preeminent climate scientists (John Wallace, Isaac Held, David Thompson, Kevin Trenberth, and John Walsh) in a recent letter published in Science Magazine.

 

[Alphaba]

What looks like a humungus oceanic equatorial Kelvin wave is slowly heading towards East Pacific and equatorial South American coastal waters:

Link to the 30 days animated version: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/pent_gif/xz/movie.temp.0n.gif


According to Dr. Michael Ventrice (operational scientist for the Energy team at Weather Services International), if westerly winds continue to blow significantly over West-Central Pacific, it has the potential to generate a major El Niño event.