Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[mhaze]

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.

..... 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?

Since the oceans hold some 2000x more heat energy than the air, and since just the top couple of meters of ocean hold as much energy as the atmospheric column above it, we discuss the ocean and it's dynamics at the moment.

Loehle 2009 indicated we've had 5 years of global ocean cooling at 0.3 x 10^22 joule per year. When the oceans throw out heat, the atmosphere gets almost all of that energy. Only a very small part could radiate in the infrared directly from the ocean to space.

So looking at the matter from a "release of heat" point of view, instead of the atmosphere "warming and getting hotter", doesn't the atmosphere warming means the planet is cooling down? EG if we have a steam radiator, we release the valve, the room gets hotter, but due to the release of heat. Local system energy content has gone down.

Ocean heating up --> planet is increasing energy content
Ocean cooling --> planet is decreasing energy content

Air temperature is virtually irrelevant from this viewpoint (which is why this discussion slid from NOAA/CRU air temperatures to ocean)

From these five articles, I don't see how the AGW concepts of "heat in the pipeline" will stand up to examination. Of these pipeline assertions, there were two forms

1. AGW opines of a continuous accumulation of heat in the oceans
2. AGW believes in a continuous yet gradual radiative imbalance due to CO2

(2) if high sensitivity as AGW claims must result in (1)...

Well, that's all just conjecture. Go ahead and pounce on it. But when you do, reconcile this with the assertions made:

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

 

[macdoc]

A good summary
http://arstechnica.com/science/news..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

snip

Nothing is ever simple

Of course, in any system with significant unknowns, it's impossible to rule out anything unexpected. So, for example, just as a return to Maunder Minimum conditions would have been largely unexpected, there's also the remote possibility that solar radiance might drop below the level expected based on the loss of sunspots. There is also the chance that one of the associated changes that occur during the solar cycle, like the changes in levels of UV light, might have an unexpected impact on the climate.


Still, it's worth remembering that these are hypotheticals twice removed—potential differences caused by a potential event (changes in solar activity) that we're not even sure is happening at this point.

The last thing that seems to require a comment is the idea, popularized by Henrik Svensmark, that changes in the solar magnetic field associated with sunspots can have an indirect affect on the climate. These changes influence the number of cosmic rays that reach the earth's atmosphere—weaker solar magnetic fields mean that the Earth gets hit by more cosmic rays. These cosmic rays are responsible for the production of the radioactive isotopes of carbon and beryllium mentioned above, which is why we can use them to track sunspot numbers.


Svensmark's idea is that the impact of cosmic rays (registered by 14C and 10Be levels) isn't simply a proxy for solar activity, but is part of a process that influences the climate directly. He proposes that the cosmic rays form ions in the lower atmosphere that seed clouds, which cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back out.
At the moment, however, there is essentially no evidential or mechanistic support for this idea.

a myth based on a maybe based on a might perhaps....the state of the alternatives to the simple fact of fossil C02 driving change and we're releasing it....

Occam rules....

 

[mhaze]

Related to #1101?

A good summary
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/another-little-ice-age-solar-activity-and-climate-change.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

Yes we could have a pretty good guess at whether we now enter a Maunder Solar Minimum by 2015. Your link's guesses at the effects of climate in the case of such an event are pure speculation. But they are way, way optimistic end of the spectrum.

The conservative view would be that a colder world would be an unprecedented disaster, given the higher populations we have now in comparison to centuries ago.

a myth based on a maybe based on a might perhaps....the state of the alternatives to the simple fact of fossil C02 driving change and we're releasing it....

Not so sure that the facts agree with your "good summary". But isn't it nice that the scientists at CERN are carefully examining and measuring these maybe and these mights?

 

[DogB]

Wow you've sure drunk the Koolaid. Suspended the laws of physics again I see.....brilliant - Nobel worthy even....

Brilliant argument. Swiftian in it’s rapier like wit.

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....

Perhaps you’d like to back that statement up with some evidence?

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

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

Yeah, we’ll see. I’ll give you the trade winds but the SOI is stubbornly neutral, dateline cloudiness is low and subsurface temperatures are actually creeping down now.

hanging around the denidiot sites again...

I gather my data where it lays.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/jun09.html

But you’ve already admitted that we’re in El Nino?

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

I’ll leave it up to the other readers to decide who’s been drinking what Koolaid

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

and even more than that to lose the ice mass

http://www.squarestate.net/diary/8497/bbc-antarctic-glacier-melting-exponentially-faster

You really want to get into southern hemisphere ice data?

Do try and keep up....

My thoughts exactly.

 

[DogB]

Go ahead and pounce on it.

Me? I don't have any major issue with anything you've said. It's mostly conjecture but that's fine, that's pretty much what we do here.

 

[Wangler]

A good summary
http://arstechnica.com/science/news..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging.

They conclude:

"Still, even a relatively small effect may buy humanity valuable time in coming to grips with the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere (at least when it comes to temperatures—ocean acidification is a different problem entirely)."

If,and I say, if man is the driver for this climate change, any small mitigating effect won't give humanity valuable time...we'll probably just burn that much more fossil fuel.

 

[mhaze]

Yeah, it is a bit of a strange article. Like...

If, if and if, resulting in A, then if coincidentally if, if and if result in B, then.....

I have trouble with If^1

 

[DogB]

...we'll probably just burn that much more fossil fuel.

Agreed. An argument along the lines of ‘let’s give all the alcoholics a few extra bucks so they can spend it on cab fare to go to AA meetings”.

“What, you mean they spent it on more booze – how could we have predicted that?”

 

[David Rodale]

A good summary
http://arstechnica.com/science/news..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

snip



a myth based on a maybe based on a might perhaps....the state of the alternatives to the simple fact of fossil C02 driving change and we're releasing it....

Occam rules....

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

Abstract
Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.​

Conclusion

Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism, the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.

Svensmark, H., T. Bondo, and J. Svensmark (2009),

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds,

Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL038429, in press.​

Stay tuned, there's more from Svensmark and CERN in the coming months....

Additional links
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/News/News.aspx?guid={3415679C-8390-434D-82AE-4544DA4AC30F}

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface
temperature change

ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model

Nicola Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Richard C. Willson
ACRIM, Coronado, California, USA
The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.'s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites' original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.

Snippet from Conclusion

“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”

Granted, Scafetta, Hoyt, Schatten, Willson, Svensmark, Soon, Livingston, Penn, Landscheidt, West et al and CERN are blithering idiots compared to John Timmer and certain individuals posting in forums, but humor yourself and read.



BTW, do you believe everything you read that supports your POV? From your link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLv3LpI0fw21ULmgkJtinBFrwm7AD9A6OUF06

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON — The world's oceans this summer are the warmest on record.
The National Climatic Data Center, the government agency that keeps weather records, says the average global ocean temperature in July was 62.6 degrees. That's the hottest since record-keeping began in 1880. The previous record was set in 1998.

This is a good one too:

It's most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees above average.

No doubt you checked it out for accuracy. Borenstein wouldn't purposely mislead naive True Believer readers now would he?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=

Check before replying......

 

[macdoc]

uh oh that spun the wrong way for the deniosphere...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html

snip

New research has added more evidence to suggest low-level clouds may be reduced by climate change, causing further global warming. The study, published in Science, relied on the Met Office’s climate model as the only one which accurately reflects real-life observations. The findings also support many years of Met Office research looking at how climate change may affect clouds and how clouds may affect climate change.

 

[DogB]

uh oh that spun the wrong way for the deniosphere...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html

snip

The Met Office? Seriously, the best model was the one generated by the Met (barbeque summer) Office?

Doesn't say much for the other models, that's for sure.

 

[mhaze]

The Met Office? Seriously, the best model was the one generated by the Met (barbeque summer) Office?

Doesn't say much for the other models, that's for sure.

Granted, Scafetta, Hoyt, Schatten, Willson, Svensmark, Soon, Livingston, Penn, Landscheidt, West et al and CERN ....

Against the Met?



BWAHAHAHAA!!!

the question MacDoc avoids.

What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen?

the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Met Office? Seriously, the best model was the one generated by the Met (barbeque summer) Office?

Doesn't say much for the other models, that's for sure.

That was their 'new' model, which is very ambitious. The standard climate models would never claim to be able to make such a forecast. Perhaps they will get it more reliable in a few years, but it really doesn't have much to do with AGW.

 

[Wangler]

The Met Office? Seriously, the best model was the one generated by the Met (barbeque summer) Office?

Doesn't say much for the other models, that's for sure.

What is so bad about the Met office? Seems as if there are some credentialled folks there, who (based upon my very brief Google) seem to be on the up-and-up.

 

[mhaze]

What is so bad about the Met office? Seems as if there are some credentialled folks there, who (based upon my very brief Google) seem to be on the up-and-up.

Nothing.

It is just ridiculous to argue from authority from that direction.

Maybe the next IPCC report will prop itself up by referencing the Met?

 

[DogB]

What is so bad about the Met office? Seems as if there are some credentialled folks there, who (based upon my very brief Google) seem to be on the up-and-up.

Oh it's just a bit of a joke in the denier blogosphere that's all.

The Met Office have been super brave in making some very long range forecasts for the last few years and despite spend a ton of money on a very cool computer they've basically ended up with considerable egg on their face over it. It probably wouldn’t have been so bad except that they've predicted record breaking hot summers for the last three years and the weather persistently fails to play ball - that, of course, amuses the deniers no end.

As AUP said, it doesn't really have much to do with AGW but I found it entertaining nevertheless.

 

[mhaze]

For some reason, Macdoc really, really does not want to answer this question. Whatever.

What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen?

the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.

 

[Wangler]

For some reason, Macdoc really, really does not want to answer this question. Whatever.

What are the implications of this statement by Dr. Lindzen?

the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.

Could you explain to me? Longwave would be considered infrared, right?

 

[macdoc]

I answered regarding Lindzen in case you missed it...I'll repeat it in case you did not quite get the gist of it



Ignorance gets ignored...

seems the general case for the deniers these day...ignored as irrelevant.

 

[macdoc]

Speaking of laughter.....the denidiots now put themselves in the pantheon of the evolution deniers....how appropo

August 26, 2009 5:05 PM


US business lobby demands Scopes trial for global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/08/us-business-lobby-demands-scop.html