Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Tumbleweed]

You are confusing oscillation of various energy forms ( wind, latent heat, ocean currents, coriolis effects, SST, land temperatures and gradients, storm forms which move heat and energy around in the various geo-systems ...

with net warming which is an alteration in the radiative balance between incoming solar and outgoing radiation FROM the earth.

The retained energy shows up in part as increased temperature land sea and air and in part as changes in the cryosphere and other energy sinks.
Some will be increased rainfall, wind speed, storm intensities.

GW is a short form for the change in radiative balance to holding more energy.

Your sine wave idea is fine WITHIN the earth's geo-systems - lots of crazy peaks and troughs and gradients and amplification and feedback.

It's not GW tho.

GW fuels changes in the weather systems - like increased water load in the atmosphere...very complex outcomes and energy transforms...

I have seen dramatic anecdotal evidence here of that increased water load in the atmosphere: In 2003 we increased our all time 24hr rainfall amount by 40%. Records that go back a century. Breaking a record by 40% is almost unheard of . Its like going from a record all time snow of 20" to 28". Then in 2007 it went up 40% again. Same as the old snow record of 20" increasing to 39, almost doubled. Unheard of. A 20th century old rain record doubled?? Actually, the weather here in the PNW is oscillating wildly. Our wet season has become almost monsoonal, breaking all time rain records left and right and we are breaking all time highs and dry spells left and right. Can all time lows be far behind?

 

[Tumbleweed]

When climbing around in the Columbia Icefied Environs, I took a picture from the summit of a mountain. A different picture from 1920 from the same location showed a a vast amount more ice than my picture. It was almost as if a line had been drawn: Below that line, a good thousand feet of ice was gone. But above that line there had been no change whatsoever. And it make sense. If you think of the average freezing level being a function of global warming, a new freezing level would be established at some height above the "old" freezing level as the atmosphere warmed. Since the average annual temp is still below freezing above that new average freezing level, glaciers can still exist. below it everytrhing melts away. But--- what if increased precip due to global warming dramatically increased the amount of snow that falls above the Average Freezing Temp line. Would not the glaciers above that level advance once again?

 

[macdoc]

Yes they do in fact gain from that phenomena - in some areas of Western Alaska and the interior of Antarctica there is net mass gain due to exactly what you describe.

But the net mass LOSS worldwide is far greater and even regionally - the net mass loss for the western Antarctic is perhaps 20 x greater than the small gain in the interior....where snow had been very rare.

Many penguins are dying as a result of precipitation changes - where there used to be only snowfall now there is rain with devastating consequences to breeding colonies.

Can all time lows be far behind?

Trend line is to warmer conditions in all but a few areas....look at the Arctic report card. That said we get wider excursions - and often as you relate - startling changes in a single year.
That last Cat 2 typhoon that hit Taiwan dumped 15% more rain in a single day than the average for the entire year.....and 50% more rain than any previous typhoon even tho it's destructive winds were low, the rain load was incredible.

Each year with more fossil C02 emitted has incrementally more energy gain and that gain builds on the year before.....C02 is forever in human terms.
Temporary phenomena like La Nina or a volcano ( Pinatubo ) can alter the slope of the line, reflect solar or bury surface heat but even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today it would take 100k years to return to preindustrial levels.

 

[Wangler]

.....C02 is forever in human terms.

Mac, what do you mean by this statement.

Also:

We are very very slowly slipping into the cool part of the orbit - we might just have changed things enough to delay or cancel the next round of ice.

Do you have a linky?

 

[macdoc]

Our emissions of CO2 will impact climate for 100k years....

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

as far as positioning - we are just slightly toward the cooling end

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


snip

ince orbital variations are predictable[8], if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to "predict" future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects and that the mechanism by which orbital forcing influences climate is not well understood.
The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years. A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause an ice age, are expected in the next 50,000 years.
An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."[9]
More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[10]
The best chances for a decline in Northern hemisphere summer insolation that would be sufficient for triggering an ice age is at 130,000 year or possibly as far out at 620,000 years. [11]
[edit]

This a very faint signal compared to what we are doing....

 

[aleCcowaN]

When climbing around in the Columbia Icefied Environs, I took a picture from the summit of a mountain. A different picture from 1920 from the same location showed a a vast amount more ice than my picture...

While I was making some informal research for the other thread -"more than 89%.."- I learnt that NW states have had the highest warming tendency among the 48 contiguous states for 1950-1999 (from 0.5 to 1°C) while southern and SE states -even Southern Illinois and Indiana, and Missouri- have had a slightly cooling tendency (from 0 to -0.5°C) in the same period.

Some figures in http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf

Would not the glaciers above that level advance once again?

Yes they do in fact gain from that phenomena - in some areas of Western Alaska and the interior of Antarctica there is net mass gain due to exactly what you describe.

For the same reason glacier Perito Moreno in Southern Patagonia -that famous touristic destination for the periodical collapses of the ice dam- was gaining mass during last 70 years. The 47 glaciers in the neighbouring Los Glaciares National Park are not so healthy as they are in a dryer section.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Climate book is terrific and very up to date
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Climat ... teVol1.pdf

Thank you a lot for that [I'm gonna have many days learning both English and climate science]

I was reading more and thinking about the conveyor belt and the role of seas. I found a lot of data sources, some from Argo project, and also downloaded the Pacific Marine Atlas (about 2Gby of disk space).

...

The retained energy shows up in part as increased temperature land sea and air and in part as changes in the cryosphere and other energy sinks.
Some will be increased rainfall, wind speed, storm intensities.

...

Playing with the program I plotted some images and I made later these animations:

• A sea temperature profile for all 40°S for year 2007 (black towers are terra firma and continental sea platform and correspond to -from left to right- the limit between Patagonia and Pampas-Central Valley, Bass Strait -that which divide Tasmania from Australia-, and southern North Island in New Zealand).

Here we can see hot waters in the same place the warm branch of the conveyor belt is supposed to "turn the corner" around the southern tip of Africa (about 40°E). Also, the deep ocean is cold but it reflects a bit the streams near the sea surface. [The latitude I selected is one where hot Brazil Current meets cold Malvinas-Falkland Current and Benguela Current meets Agulhas Current, so some variations are caused by changes in current position and intensity]

• An animation for the same latitude with values for June covering 2007-8-9

This subject made me think about the huge mass of cold water that is below 500m, about 1.1 billion of cubic kilometers that is at about an average of 2 or 3°C. Heat from inside the Earth's crust "warms" this mass (some 0.35 W.m^-2 near spreading ridges). But this deep cold water stays cold because its inherent thermal inertia and the contributions of the polar regions that "replaces the cold" -all this made me think in terms of electronic circuits, then we have "holes", that is, electrons with positive charge-. As the system works with a stable temperature -ice melting in some conditions- it guarantees to be a heat sink as long as there is a lot of ice. But what about the replenishment of very cold, dense, high salt content waters for the bottom of the seas? I'm not sure if the worst problem is not the ice melting in Summer but the waters not freezing in Winter. That new ice is what leaves saltier sea water about -1 or -2°C.

It also worries me the additional amount of melted ice that is 0° but light, then it has the power to cooling sea water on the surface and make a lot of changes in superficial streams and conditions. The system seems to me like it works as some sort of pump of cold -similar to a source of current representing a transistor-: the system will do whatever is needed to keep the parameters within a strict range ... as long as it can stand it.

I'm sure this is an oversimplification and it contains errors, but now I see the subject as a motor that is making funny noises as something wrong is happening.

Comments are welcome.

 

[macdoc]

Google on thermohaline circulation

 

[mhaze]

Thank you....reading more and thinking.... found a lot of data sources....plotted some images....deep cold water stays cold because its inherent thermal inertia and the contributions of the polar regions that "replaces the cold" ....the additional amount of melted ice that is 0° but light......

So, you've looked at the Argos data that shows no warming and decided that you need to worry about warming?

Or have you tried to make some sort of guesses about climate from two or three years of data?

Most reports I've seen on ocean dynamics emphasized "decadal trends and variability", which simply stated, means that a few years has no statistical or real world significance. Some people have of course looked for long term cycles and dynamic mechanisms, two examples follows.

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

 

[mhaze]

....what if increased precip due to global warming dramatically increased the amount of snow that falls above the Average Freezing Temp line. Would not the glaciers above that level advance once again?

Weather, particularly around abrupt changes in elevation, is subject to many variables and is pretty well understood. These are regional phenomena.

For example, suppose you have a mountain range next to a city close to the ocean. Rain may be largely the product of moist air coming inland, and encountering upslope conditions as elevations rise, rain and snow fall. The city generates an Urban Heat Island thus it's local effect is (picking a number) 2C hotter than previous millenia. Ploughed and cultivated fields nearby have a different albedo and affect the nearby mountain range by way both of the differing heating of air and the differing moisture content of air moving by. Various ocean cycles on 60-80 year time duration generate massive inland changes in precipitation patterns.

Is attribution of "cause" to "global warming" more a direction of not learning and understanding than the reverse? Or in the understanding of a regional weather system, is it necessary to invoke "global warming" to understand the phenomena?

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, you've looked at the Argos data that shows no warming and decided that you need to worry about warming?

You're simply repeating "good news" about Argos so common in the anti-GW advocacy -the oceans are not raising; they show no warming; climate shifted, is over; yakety-yak-

two examples follows.

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

I'm sorry. The sources you use to present in these threads say nothing relevant -as Giorvieva's paper-. I have no time to make fruitless analysis. This time I went directly to the conclusions, as you show a certain ability to read in papers that what you'd like to read.

Your two examples are just one example:

Published paper ("A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" by Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson and Sergey Kravtsov / Received 5 April 2007; accepted 15 June 2007; published 12 July 2007. / In two years 3 times cited -every time in articles written by at least one of the authors)

Conclusions:

"The above observational and modeling results sug-
gest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchro-
nous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event
in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."
​

No wonder so few citations -non outside the kin-. Something acknowledged to be a speculation: There is a standard explanation, but by comparing a simulation -the kind of thing you hate- with an old event -with data you have distrusted many times- it is suggested an alternative hypothesis, videlicet , it's not just anthropogenic warming, it may be -or may be not- a shift to a different warmer state superimposed on AGW,

The "second" example is more of the same an by the same ones -not really, as they lost Kravtsov in the way-. This unpublished, recent draft contains shocking new developments. Fasten your seatbelts and read:

"This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend
from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred."
​

I'm shocked by these revelations. One of the figures in the draft shows clearly no warming trend:



Surely one of the sources (Hansen, J. et al. (2005), Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431–1435.) had to do with these amazing implications.

As far as I know, we use to have classes at school, then a break, and later more classes. I think that break in English implies a delay or interruption in the continuity of something, then, things may take up again their usual way of being -or they might not, but this is not define by the word "break" itself-. Certainly, the "breaks" in the figure give no "break" to the general trend.

Again, the paper means nothing about the state of opinion about a GW -or not- and who or what is accountable for that.

Much chaff, little wheat. That is the trend in the articles you cite. Give me a break.

 

[Wangler]

Again, the paper means nothing about the state of opinion about a GW -or not- and who or what is accountable for that.

You are correct in this statement.

However, MHaze did not bring to our attention for that purpose.

Looking at those two papers, they represent what MHaze proffered them as:

Some people have of course looked for long term cycles and dynamic mechanisms, two examples follows.

 

[mhaze]

You're simply repeating "good news" about Argos so common in the anti-GW advocacy -the oceans are not raising; they show no warming; climate shifted, is over; yakety-yak-

Nope. Just commenting on your artwork which showed....uhh...nothing...and your speculation based on (nothing) about something wrong with some engine?

I'm sorry. The sources you use to present in these threads say nothing relevant -as Giorvieva's paper-. I have no time to make fruitless analysis. This time I went directly to the conclusions, as you show a certain ability to read in papers that what you'd like to read.

Your two examples are just one example:

Published paper ("A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" by Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson and Sergey Kravtsov / Received 5 April 2007; accepted 15 June 2007; published 12 July 2007. / In two years 3 times cited -every time in articles written by at least one of the authors)

Conclusions:

"The above observational and modeling results sug-
gest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate
system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major
climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling
strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an
increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchro-
nous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a
new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in
climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post
1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse
gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols
[Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the
2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event
in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative
hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s
event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be
superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."
​

No wonder so few citations -non outside the kin-. Something acknowledged to be a speculation: There is a standard explanation, but by comparing a simulation -the kind of thing you hate- with an old event -with data you have distrusted many times- it is suggested an alternative hypothesis, videlicet , it's not just anthropogenic warming, it may be -or may be not- a shift to a different warmer state superimposed on AGW,.....

My, aren't we colorful today?

Yes, you have successfully read a conclusion of a paper at this point and highlighted it quite well. Understanding the relevance of the citation to global temperature trends and ocean issues, not at all.

Now be sure to put the crayolas away before going to bed.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Some people have of course looked for long term cycles and dynamic mechanisms, two examples follows.

http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

Ah! Your contribution was just for making conversation. I didn't realise it. I thought you were making some sort of point about there is no an AGW. Sorry about my confusion.

Long term cycles mentioned just because they have existed and exist -who doubts that- and people have looked at them -of course, the obvious, somebody is analyzing every analyzable thing-. Not that you are implying that there is no warming trend through "those" example.

Then, you broke your silence to drop a message that had these contents:

1. I made some images just to see: there is a temperature profile and that profile varies. Then it must be a trend what I had in mind. Bad try my friend, keep trying.
2. If such made up by you trend existed, it has no significance as you have read about decadal variations: Your main intention is to state that no trend can be seen in a period conveniently long selected by you -you played here not stating if you spoke of globals or local trends so through such ambiguity you always can claim that you, Zarathustra, spake about PDO or whatever wave you wanted to surf on-.
3. "Those" paper is an example that there are people looking for cycles -without disregarding trends-
4. The whole setup is: things vary, no warm you see, many works you've read about everything, and the rest of us is irremediably lost in petty terms about exceedingly widest scopes, that's why we failed to see the truths you have been enlightened about.

So #1069 belongs to one of three typical messages of yours. In one group you sort of get lost looking at a pebble in the beach in detail -when you argued papers like Georgieva's- disregarding all the rest and focusing in the conclusions and possibilities you are looking for or you can accept. Another group of messages is to criticize -massively without offering any papers really related- the authors that arrive to the conclusions and possibilities you are not looking for and you can't accept. The third group are the messages like #1069 where you say collections of things in the line of point #4. You have also a fourth variable outcome that includes leaves of absense, rules of Emmanuel Goldstein commenting live from Miniluv, a variety of smoke curtains, and a complete bag of tricks that may be a sign that commerce and not science is your main field of action (mostly that advocacy of selling the product of your company as it is the best of the World, just because it's what they give you to sell and the manager roared "Are you part of the team or not?")

That's why I love your posts here. They are structured but they keep mutating, so they pose a challenge to extract the essence of how lupus est homo homini, to explain the fellow men how to avoid such influences. I think that is the main purpose of JREF.

 

[macdoc]

ESL...sure...

 

[mhaze]

Ah! ... my confusion.... pebble in the beach ... leaves of absense,....smoke curtains....bag of tricks .... main purpose of JREF.

You may be interested, or more at home, in the Conspiracy forums.

Now be sure to put the crayolas away before going to bed.

....MHaze did not bring to our attention for that purpose.

Looking at those two papers, they represent what MHaze proffered them as:

Originally Posted by mhaze
Some people have of course looked for long term cycles and dynamic mechanisms, two examples follows.

It's all pretty simple if you just read what people say, isn't it?

 

[mhaze]

A third.

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies



http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

 

[stilicho]

In my country people who are worried about GW are conservative, capitalism-lovers, etc.

I think that's why most of us who trust the science also want scientific solutions. We want nuclear-powered electricity, working on a private enterprise model. We can still use fossil fuels for essential traffic and wouldn't burden the environment.

The political issues are different.

Everything centres upon control and denial of private initiative. I think you'll agree this is probably the worst of all possible worlds. There are plenty of available and convertible energy sources around apart from fossil fuels. There is actually a surplus of energy and not a surfeit.

Once we learn how to control the conveyor and other inputs, we're on Easy Street.

 

[macdoc]

A third.

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

so the deniosphere wakes up to asymmetrical response, energy transforms and flows and now thinks ENSO et al are the primary driver...

classic.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jLv3LpI0fw21ULmgkJtinBFrwm7AD9A6OUF06

snip

In hot water: World's ocean temps warmest recorded
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.
Meteorologists blame a combination of a natural El Nino weather pattern on top of worsening manmade global warming.

is C02 a driver? ...

 

[macdoc]

Stilcho - my only caveat to an otherwise bang on post is nuclear on public/private partnership.

Large scale projects like these and others ( the Dutch dike system for instance, the Japanese high speed rail , the London Tidal barrier ) with very long time lines and high upfront costs are hard to fit into a pure private enterprise model especially when a carbon cost base is lacking.

Private enterprise has a huge role to play and the VCs have both feet deep in switching off fossil fuel - as Doerr says - this is the biggest boom ever and there are trillions of dollars to be made moving off fossil.

But in my view - it's akin to leaving the private market to deal with smoking...ain't ever gonna happen, too much money with BAU.

A shift on this massive a scale will require both gov to set the playing field to favour carbon neutral, private to innovate and gov again to fund the switch by way of long term financing.

Gov should not pick winners as the track record is marginal but using the atmosphere as free sewage disposal as the coal companies do ( and the water for that matter ) has to end.

Private cannot evaluate the overall risk to society and act in that regard...it's not private enterprise's role to do so.

But private can bring innovation, risk taking and sometimes efficiency to the table and firms that recognize they can slice off a chunk of the Saudi's banquet by shifting from fossil to "home grown" - be it nuclear, bio-fuel, renewables etc will do very well since this is the first boom where the cash flow is already in place - to the tune of $7 trillion a year.

That's a huge vested interest and only public/private can shift that - and so far......the results suck tho there are glimmers.

Things like green building codes forcing LEEDs standards and let the industry then find out the best way to execute things like the Bank of America tower....that's an ideal combination.

In the latter case it was voluntary adoption and in the long run will save the Bank millions in energy costs....but said bank had the capital to spend more up front...
Many businesses do not or will not and again that is a role for gov to help bridge that gap with funding support when a LEEDs building goes up - just make low cost financing available - no grants.

That's where an effective partnership of public and private works well. Nuclear given it's complexity, time scale and security provisions is almost by nature a public/private partnership.

At least until Toshiba and others roll out those baby 25 year reactors...
Even then it will be likely towns and communities that participate.