Global warming discussion III

[Haig]

I read in your signature ...

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

I think I'll heed those wise words

Time will tell who is right my man ... not too long to wait

NASA says

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

 

[Haig]

Climate Change is Real

Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The Sun just won't conform to warmist theories on Global Warming / Climate Change ... tragic isn't it!

What's tragic is your fixation with the solar variability, which has little to nothing to do with AGW. Sure the sun varies a bit, but our orbit around it affords the ability for it to be measured for the effect the sun's radiation changes have on climate. Every year there is a much higher degree of variability just because our orbit isn't circular. So scientists know pretty well what the effect of minor changes in the sun's radiation will be. It's measurable and it is not AGW. AGW is an entirely different thing. That's the effect we humans have on climate, not the sun's variability.

Why that is such a difficult thing for you to understand, I have no idea.

 

[Pixel42]

Time will tell who is right my man ... not too long to wait

What precisely are you predicting will happen over what timescale which will prove you right, and what happening instead would prove you wrong? Please be specific.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I read in your signature ... I think I'll heed those wise words

Being you one inspirer, I should be surprised, but no, I'm not

Time will tell who is right my man ... not too long to wait

NASA says

Your pseudo-confident communicational style can't hide your blunders. You says models are wrong then says models are OK because it serves your imaginary conclusions.

This phrase in that weblink says it all: "In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet".

You're just mixing up the wide tribune of NASA with "NASA approves and backs this message". It's also a workshop report and not a paper, and the report is behind a paywall, so you took this bus just because it has a sign saying it goes some place you like.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Climate Change is Real

Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real

We love bobo dolls...

 

[r-j]

What precisely are you predicting will happen over what timescale which will prove you right, and what happening instead would prove you wrong? Please be specific.

If only we had that sort of certainty for global warming from CO2

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope, the models are bad and don't predict the observations.

The models are very good, as demonstrated in the paper. See fig 4 in particular.

The Pause is real, who says so? ... Lovejoy in his recent paper (pdf below) trying to explain away that very Pause that NONE of the models saw coming.

The whole point of the paper is to examine those model runs which produced the same ENSO trend as actually occurred over each 15 period. Those model runs do, in fact, reproduce the last 15 years of surface temperature change as well - which is to say, the models did predict the hiatus in surface warming over the last 15 years given the actual ENSO trend.

Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...weprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf

In which he refers to "pause" in quotes and attributes it to natural variation.

If he's using natural variability to explain the Pause then why not go ALL the way and use natural variability to explain the warming in the latter part of the 20th century ...

Because the natural variations during the late 20thCE cannot explain the warming.

... we don't need the tiny anthropomorphic bit ... Right?

Without including AGW no models can reproduce the warming of the last thirty years so we do need to include it.

The Sun just won't conform to warmist theories on Global Warming / Climate Change ... tragic isn't it!

I'm afraid it's you that's tragic.

Satellite data shows cooling trend from 1998 to the present

... and the cooling trend is being forecast to continue by skeptics in a New Little Ice Age ... we should prepare now ... why take the chance?

Grasping desperately at RSS, which you know perfectly well contains sytemic errors, and anyway wasnt it surface temperatures that the mythical Pause refers to? Has that claim been quietly abandoned, like so many failed AGW denialist themes?

Of course we never stop hearing about ever-impending Little Ice Age, which remains, as ever, impending.

 

[CapelDodger]

If only we had that sort of certainty for global warming from CO2

We do. You don't, of course, but then you're clearly determined not to.

 

[Reality Check]

Just a minute don't be too sure you understand the Sun and it's connection with the Earth
...

Just a minute, Haig, why are you denying yet again the simple fact that climate scientists know about the Sun and its effects on climate?

I could be charitable and snip your ignorance abut the difference between astronomy and climate science but it needs to be emphasized

Climate scientists know that sunspot numbers vary in a ~11 year cycle. They know that this means that on average they have no effect on the ~30 year period that is climate.

Astronomers know that sunspot numbers vary: Suddenly, the sun is eerily quiet: Where did the sunspots go?July 21, 2014

The idiocy of argument by YT video raises its ugly head yet again Especially a crank video abut dark matter, etc.

If he's using natural variability to explain the Pause then why not go ALL the way and use natural variability to explain the warming in the latter part of the 20th century

Because he is not stupid, or ignorant, Haig !

... we don't need the tiny anthropomorphic bit ... Right?

Wrong, Haig - we need the dominant anthropomorphic bit to explain global warming!

You end with even more denial of climate science
Climate myth number 5: Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

Climate myth number 9: What has global warming done since 1998?

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

Citing the climate deniers at wattsupwiththat commenting on a 2013 BBC article about one scientist's opinion.
This is a bit of Climate myth number 1: What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

The actual climate science is: Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
...
Cooling from the lowered solar output is estimated at around 0.1°C (with a maximum possible value of 0.3°C) while the greenhouse gas warming will be around 3.7°C to 4.5°C, depending on how much CO2 we emit throughout the 21st century.

IOW AGW will cause 10 times more warming then the estimated cooling in the actual Maunder Minimum (see the bottom of the BBC article) !

 

[Reality Check]

...

Even more argument by YT videos from an ignorant crank, Haig!
Here he is ranting about climate change and public opinion, along with displaying his ignorance of climate science. Actually of science in general. Science progresses. Predictions get better. So it is insanely ignorant to state
"Global warming models/predictions have been an abject failure for 20 years, and yet the IPCC claims ever-higher certainty?"
when climate models are reliable and get more reliable as we learn more.
How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

 

[r-j]

It's not hard to see that even if there is some sort of "natural cooling", or solar caused climate change, (which would be expected if solar influence was the major factor in climate change, and the sun went guiet), and Europe or all of the NH suffered colder winters, wetter summers, and even a winter increase in ice and snow, it wouldn't matter to the alarmists at all. They would claim "A recent decline in the rate of increased worldwide temperature" is actually just a natural slowdown in the global warming, and that in 10, 20, or 30 years things will start heating up again.

Or the cooling would be theorized to be because of the global warming.

Or that there isn't actually any cooling. Or that the satellite data is wrong, and it's actually still warming. More than ever.

Or that the oceans are warming which is to be expected because who ever said it would be the surface and lower atmosphere that warmed? And since the deep oceans are warming, global warming is still happening, even with surface temperatures not rising.

Or that in fact the warming we are observing fits almost perfectly with the climate models.

Or that instead of warming global warming is actually causing more extremes in weather events, both warming and cooling.

Or that a pause is predicted by some climate models.

Or that coal burning from China is causing the cooling. Or there is no cooling.

In any case, global warming is still happening and the IPCC was right about everything. And anyone who questions any of this is a flat earth science hating denier paid by evil fossil fuel companies and is a bad person.

 

[CapelDodger]

Time will tell who is right my man ... not too long to wait

How long have you been waiting now? Did you ever imagine it would already be this long? And it'll have to wait at least until after any El Nino that might kick off this year.

I've been following AGW on the interwebs for twenty years now, and all that time I've been hearing people say the whole AGW edifice was crumbling if not already in ruins. And yet it remains not only whole but vastly more substantial, not to say evident. It must be ten years or so since Piers Corbyn and other such weirdos confidently announced that we had entered a long-term cooling phase yet we just had the warmest June following the warmest May (for surface temperatures, but that's what Corbyn and the clown crowd were referring to. Heck, it even used to be what the mythical Pause referred to).

AGW denial, in contrast, has becomefringe and frantic. Which I find most gratifying.

 

[Reality Check]

Nope, the models are bad and don't predict the observations.

I missed this bit of regurgitation of climate science denial from you Haig.
If you are determined to remain in denial of climate science then you should not state invalid assertions about climate science: The models are reliable and do predict the observations.

You should not demand the impossible feat of climate models predicting the current hiatus in global surface temperatures.
There is a thing called internal variability that cannot be predicted in advance. Climate scientists thus run multiple simulations with different natural variability cycles (ensembles). So somewhere out there probably are runs that predict the current hiatus exactly! But no one would expect the ensemble to match the observations exactly - just that the observations will lie within the ensemble limits.

There has been no pause in global temperatures.
There has been a pause in global surface temperature. This is thought to be because the ocean has sucked up more heat then usual through moderate La Nina conditions, and solar and volcanic activity. IMO this is bad because I suspect that when the inevitable El Nino comes along there will be more heat available to be released to the atmosphere. Thus a period of more rapid warming which will be harder to cope with.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's not hard to see that even if there is some sort of "natural cooling", or solar caused climate change, (which would be expected if solar influence was the major factor in climate change, and the sun went guiet), and Europe or all of the NH suffered colder winters, wetter summers, and even a winter increase in ice and snow, it wouldn't matter to the alarmists at all.

It would to Little Ice Age alarmists, who'd be cock-a-hoop. It isn't going to happen, of course, because solar variation is not in fact a major factor in global warming; that's caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is to say AGW.

They would claim "A recent decline in the rate of increased worldwide temperature" is actually just a natural slowdown in the global warming, and that in 10, 20, or 30 years things will start heating up again.

Since the situation isn't going to occur you vent your bile on a hypothetical. I'll put it down to frustration.

You can't actualy address the current subject, which concerns the demonstrated accuracy of climate models and the fact that natural variation can explain the surface temperature trend of the last 15 years - the era of the mythical Pause. So you resort to "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they!". Well they would, because it's true, and demonstrably so. Your hypothetical is, of course, not demonstrably anything except tragic.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped "alarmist" nonsense...
They would claim "A recent decline in the rate of increased worldwide temperature" is actually just a natural slowdown in the global warming, and that in 10, 20, or 30 years things will start heating up again.

The climate science, r-j, is that this is actually just a natural slowdown in the global warming caused by ENSO, volcanic activity and solar activity. As such in "10, 20, or 30 years things will start heating up again" or even 5 years!

The climate science is: Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity with the description in the blog

But "too warm" is a concept we need to wrap our soon-to-be-baked brains around, according to new research from NASA's Drew Shindell. After performing a region-specific analysis of the things that affect the global climate, Shindell has come to the conclusion that, slowdown be damned, we are still looking at a vast leap in the earth's heat levels. In fact, there could be a warming increase about 20 percent greater than indicated by surface-temperature observations from the last 150 years, according to his new study in Nature Climate Change.

I am a little dubious about the description - the letter is about transient climate response not climate sensitivity- but the letter is behind a paywall.

There are comments about the letter, e.g. Nic Lewis at Climate Audit

This new Nature Climate Change paper by Drew Shindell claims that the lowest end of transient climate response (TCR) – below 1.3°C – in CMIP5 models is very unlikely, and that this suggests the lowest end of model equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates – modestly above 2°C – is also unlikely.

replied to at RealClimate:Shindell: On constraining the Transient Climate Response

 

[r-j]

It's impossible to actually debate the alarmists, because they won't simply make a claim. Or change what they claim (move the goalpost)

- the era of the mythical Pause.

What does that actually mean?

The last 17 years is either warming as expected, or there has been a "slowdown", or "a flattening", or "a pause in warming", or there has been an increase in warming. It depends on who is talking.

Cooler-than-average water in the Eastern Pacific might explain a recent flattening of increases in surface temperatures tied to global warming, a study suggests.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/08/28/global-warming-hiatus/2718147/

Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds
Study shows sharply accelerating trade winds have buried surface heat underwater, reducing heat flowing into atmosphere http://www.theguardian.com/environm...warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study

Study finds global warming ‘pause’ comes from unusual Pacific Ocean trade winds http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...comes-from-unusual-pacific-ocean-trade-winds/

Planet, Oceans Burning Up: There is no “Pause” in Global Warming

Climate change has not hit a "speed bump." The planet's temperature is not remaining steady and it certainly isn't cooling. Earth, especially its ocean, are heating up… and rapidly.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/oceans-burning-warming.html

And of course the latest study that claims the natural cooling cycle is "hiding" the AGW.

And from 2010

When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

As well as the claim we just saw in topic, that the satellite data is no good, and it's actually just warming away. making all of the above wrong of course.

It's quite remarkable. The regulars here know my view, which it seems nobody on either side gives a hoot about.

 

[r-j]

The climate science, r-j, is that this is actually just a natural slowdown in the global warming caused by ENSO, volcanic activity and solar activity. As such in "10, 20, or 30 years things will start heating up again" or even 5 years!

I already stated that. It's no secret that some are claiming that. It's that there are so many other things being claimed, and it can change at any time, that's my point.

 

[BenBurch]

I'll make a claim. Last month was the warmest June on Record.
And May was the warmest May on Record.

 

[Haig]

How long have you been waiting now?

Since the start of solar cycle 24. NASA had predicted it would be stronger than solar cycle 23. The skeptics said it would be very weak and the start of the decline into a Grand Solar Minimum, seems they are right, Pause anyone?

Did you ever imagine it would already be this long?

Hasn't been that long. If you remember the period between SC23 and the start of SC24 the Sun was so quiet, no sunspots, for a lot longer than mainstream predicted and caused a lot of bewilderment. Now NASA are saying solar cycle 24 is the weakest cycle for 200 yrs. Well solar cycle 25 will be MUCH weaker than that IF the skeptics are right.

And it'll have to wait at least until after any El Nino that might kick off this year.

Really? Didn't you get the memo? That warmist hope is disappearing fast.

AGW Solar denial, in contrast, has becomefringe and frantic. Which I find most gratifying.

There, I fix that for you ...

The planet has not warmed since 1998. Solar cycles 21, 22 and 23 were not particularly active, with cycle 23 being the weakest of the three. With solar cycle 24 coming in much weaker still, at just over half the size of cycle 23, there is cause to worry for the future.

Solar cycle 25, which will peak between 2022 and 2025 could, according to Hathaway, be the “weakest in centuries”. This does not bode well.

This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml