New energy-budget-derived estimates of climate sensitivity and transient response in Nature Geoscience
Guest post by Nic Lewis
Readers may recall that last December I published an informal climate sensitivity study at WUWT, here. The study adopted a heat-balance (energy budget) approach and used recent data, including satellite-observation-derived aerosol forcing estimates. I would like now to draw attention to a new peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study published as a Letter in Nature Geoscience, “Energy budget constraints on climate response”, here. This study uses the same approach as mine, based on changes in global mean temperature, forcing and heat uptake over 100+ year periods, with aerosol forcing adjusted to reflect satellite observations. Headline best estimates of 2.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3°C for the – arguably more policy-relevant – transient climate response (TCR) are obtained, based on changes to the decade 2000–09, which provide the best constrained, and probably most reliable, estimates.
The 5–95% uncertainty ranges are 1.2–3.9°C for ECS and 0.9–2.0°C for TCR. I should declare an interest in this study: you will find my name included in the extensive list of authors: Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen. I am writing this article in my personal capacity, not as a representative of the author team.
The Nature Geoscience paper, although short, is in my view significant for two particular reasons.
First, using what is probably the most robust method available, it establishes a well-constrained best estimate for TCR that is nearly 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean TCR of 1.8°C (per Forster et al. (2013), here). The 95% confidence bound for the Nature Geoscience paper’s 1.3°C TCR best estimate indicates some of the highest-response general circulation models (GCMs) have TCRs that are inconsistent with recent observed changes. Some two-thirds of the CMIP5 models analysed in Forster et. al (2013) have TCRs that lie above the top of the ‘likely’ range for that best estimate, and all the CMIP5 models analysed have an ECS that exceeds the Nature Geoscience paper’s 2.0°C best estimate of ECS. The CMIP5 GCM with the highest TCR, per the Forster et. al (2013) analysis, is the UK Met. Office’s flagship HadGEM2-ES model. It has a TCR of 2.5°C, nearly double the Nature Geoscience paper’s best estimate of 1.3°C and 0.5°C beyond the top of the 5–95% uncertainty range. The paper obtains similar, albeit less well constrained, best estimates using data for earlier periods than 2000–09.
Secondly, the authors include fourteen climate scientists, well known in their fields, who are lead or coordinating lead authors of IPCC AR5 WG1 chapters that are relevant to estimating climate sensitivity. Two of them, professors Myles Allen and Gabi Hegerl, are lead authors for Chapter 10, which deals with estimates of ECS and TCR constrained by observational evidence. The study was principally carried out by a researcher, Alex Otto, who works in Myles Allen’s group.
Very helpfully, Nature’s editors have agreed to make the paper’s main text freely available for a limited period. I would encourage people to read the paper, which is quite short. The details given in the supplementary information (SI) enable the study to be fully understood, and its results replicated. The method used is essentially the same as that employed in my December study, being a more sophisticated version of that used in the Gregory et al. (2002) heat-balance-based climate sensitivity study, here. The approach is to draw sets of samples from the estimated probability distributions applicable to the radiative forcing produced by a doubling of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations (F2×) and those applicable to the changes in mean global temperature, radiative forcing and Earth system heat uptake (ΔT, ΔF and ΔQ), taking into account that ΔF is closely correlated with F2×. Gaussian (normal) error and internal climate variability distributions are assumed. ECS and TCR values are computed from each set of samples using the equations:
(1) ECS = F2× ΔT / (ΔF − ΔQ) and (2) TCR = F2× ΔT / ΔF .
With sufficient sets of samples, probability density functions (PDFs) for ECS and TCR can then be obtained from narrow-bin histograms, by counting the number of times the computed ECS and TCR values fall in each bin. Care is needed in dealing with samples where any of the factors in the equations are negative, to ensure that each is correctly included at the low or high end when calculating confidence intervals (CIs). Negative factors occur in a modest, but significant, proportion of samples when estimating ECS using data from the 1970s or the 1980s.
Estimates are made for ECS and TCR using ΔT, ΔF and ΔQ derived from data for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970–2009, relative to that for 1860–79. The estimates from the 2000s data are probably the most reliable, since that decade had the strongest forcing and, unlike the 1990s, was not affected by any major volcanic eruptions. However, although the method used makes allowance for internal climate system variability, the extent to which confidence should be placed in the results from a single decade depends on how well they are corroborated by results from a longer period. It is therefore reassuring that, although somewhat less well constrained, the best estimates of ECS and TCR using data for 1970–2009 are closely in line with those using data for the 2000s. Note that the validity of the TCR estimate depends on the historical evolution of forcing approximating the 70-year linear ramp that the TCR definition involves. Since from the mid-twentieth century onwards greenhouse gas levels rose much faster than previously, that appears to be a reasonable approximation, particularly for changes to the 2000s.
I have modified the R-code I used for my December study so that it computes and plots PDFs for each of the five periods used in the Nature Geoscience study for estimating ECS and TCR. The resulting ECS and TCR graphs, below, are not as elegant as the confidence region graphs in the Nature Geoscience paper, but are in a more familiar form. For presentation purposes, the PDFs (but not the accompanying box-and-whisker plots) have been truncated at zero and the upper limit of the graph and then normalised to unit total probability. Obviously, these charts do not come from the Nature Geoscience paper and are not to be regarded as associated with it. Any errors in them are entirely my own.
The box-and-whisker plots near the bottom of the charts are perhaps more important than the PDF curves. The vertical whisker-end bars and box-ends show (providing they are within the plot boundaries) respectively 5–95% and 17–83% CIs – ‘very likely’ and ‘likely’ uncertainty ranges in IPCC terminology – whilst the vertical bars inside the boxes show the median (50% probability point). For ECS and TCR, whose PDFs are skewed, the median is arguably in general a better central estimate than the mode of the PDF (the location of its peak), which varies according to how skewed and badly-constrained the PDF is. The TCR PDFs (note the halved x-axis scaling), which are unaffected by ΔQ and uncertainty therein, are all better constrained than the ECS PDFs.
The Nature Geoscience ECS estimate based on the most recent data (best estimate 2.0°C, with a 5–95% CI of 1.2–3.9°C) is a little different from that per my very similar December study (best estimate 1.6°C, with a 5–95% CI of 1.0–2.9°C, rounding outwards). The (unstated) TCR estimate implicit in my study, using Equation (2), was 1.3°C, with a 5–95% range of 0.9–2.0°C, precisely in line with the Nature Geoscience paper. In the light of these comparisons, I should perhaps explain the main differences in the data and methodology used in the two studies:
1) The main difference of principle is that the Nature Geoscience study uses GCM-derived estimates of ΔF and F2×. Multimodel means from CMIP5 runs per Forster et al. (2013) can thus be used as a peer-reviewed source of forcings data. ΔF is accordingly based on simulations reflecting the modelled effects of RCP 4.5 scenario greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol abundances, etc. My study instead used the RCP 4.5 forcings dataset and the F2× figure of 3.71°C reflected in that dataset; I adjusted the projected post-2006 solar and volcanic forcings to conform them with estimated actuals. Use of CMIP5-based forcing data results in modestly lower estimates for both ΔF and F2× (3.44°C for F2×). Since CO2 is the dominant forcing agent, and its concentration is accurately known, the value of ΔF is closely related to the value of F2×. The overall effect of the difference in F2× on the estimates of ECS and TCR is therefore small. As set out in the SI, an adjustment of +0.3 Wm−2 to 2010 forcing was made in the Nature Geoscience study in the light of recent satellite-observation constrained estimates of aerosol forcing. On the face of it, the resulting aerosol forcing is slightly more negative than that used in my December study.
2) The Nature Geoscience study derives ΔQ using the change in estimated 0–2000 m ocean heat content (OHC) – which accounts for most of the Earth system heat uptake – from the start to the end of the relevant decade (or 1970–2009), whereas I computed a linear regression slope estimate using data for all years in the period I took (2002–11). Whilst I used the NODC/NOAA OHC data, which corresponds to Levitus et al. (2012), here, for the entire 0–2000 m ocean layer, the Nature Geoscience study splits that layer between 0–700 m and 700–2000 m. It retains the NODC/NOAA Levitus OHC data for the 700–2000 m layer but uses a different dataset for 0–700 m OHC – an update from Domingues et al. (2008), here.
3) The periods used for the headline results differ slightly. I used changes from 1871–80 to 2002–11, whilst the Nature Geoscience study uses changes from 1860–79 to 2000–09. The effects are very small if the CMIP5 GCM-derived forcing estimates are used, but when employing the RCP 4.5 forcings, switching to using changes from 1860–79 to 2000–09 increases the ECS and TCR estimates by around 0.05°C.
Since the Nature Geoscience study and my December study give identical estimates of TCR, which are unaffected by ΔQ, the difference in their estimates of ECS must come primarily from use of different ΔQ figures. The difference between the ECS uncertainty ranges of the two studies likewise almost entirely reflects the different central estimates for ΔQ they use. The ECS central estimate and 5–95% uncertainty range per my December heat-balance/energy budget study were closely in line with the preferred main results estimate for ECS, allowing for additional forcing etc. uncertainties, per my recent Journal of Climate paper, of 1.6°C with a 5–95% uncertainty range of 1.0–3.0°C. That paper used a more complex method which, although less robust, avoided reliance on external estimates of aerosol forcing.
The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.
===============================================================
Here’s a figure of interest from from the SI file – Anthony
Fig. S3| Sensitivity of 95th percentile of TCR to the best estimate and standard error of the change in forcing from the 2000s to the 1860-1879 reference period. The shaded contours show the 95th percentile boundary of the TCR confidence interval, the triangles show cases (black and blue) from the sensitivity Table S2, and a smaller adjustment to aerosol forcing for comparison (red).
Is that 2C heating…or cooling?
Interesting that the positive water vapor feedback that IPCC has used is no longer able to double or triple the Arrhenius warning from pure carbon dioxide alone. Most recently that Arrhenius warming was supposed to be about 1.1 degrees Celsius. They are getting really close to it which tells me that even positive water vapor feedback cannot save their predictions of dangerous greenhouse warming any more. You should know of course that according to Ferenc Miskolczi water vapor feedback is negative and completely cancels out any greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide. Read E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010).
“The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.”
What else would we expectfrom IPCC except typical exaggeration?
Not impressed. All I see are 14 more authors that have been bought by big something or other and are now one the denier’s list. Also this journal and its editors now need to be shunned. I think we need to redefine what peer-reviewed means. Nature Climate Change and Nature Geoscience are obviously now NOT reputable journals. Unlike NATURE which is 2nd only to the Gospel in its veracity. The libertarian-Kochtopus has obviously wrapped it’s evil tentacles of denialism-conspiracy theory around these journals, probably holding the editors families hostage. /sarc off
REPLY: Good thing you added that /sarc off -Anthony
The fun thing is that this will not change the IPCC’s policy prescriptions one iot.
Well that’s really interesting.
I just put this video up on Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science in the vain hope I can get Dawkins to come to reason on this issue. While that seems unlikely (and who knows if he’ll even see it, although he did retweet something I said the other day, which resulted in me getting in an an argument with Lucy Lawless a.k.a. Xena: Warrior Princess — which, granted, is not something I ever expected to happen in my life!
Anyway, this is what I posted:
Where this video (which is excellent and well worth watching and sharing!) is relevant is the 2 deg figure correlates very closely with the figure Geography Professor Bob Carter (over 100 papers published, plus some op-eds in major newspapers) refers to in his talk.
This Nature letter suffers from the same problem as so many other studies : It is not possible to derive ECS or TCS from observations of temperature if you don’t know what the other drivers of climate are. ie, the letter assumes the temperature is driven by CO2. If in fact something else is driving temperature, then ECs and TCS are simply unknown.
P.S. I didn’t embed that video correctly. Anyone know where instructions to do just that can be found?
REPLY: just post the link, no tags, WordPress does it automatically. I’ll fix it for you – Anthony
Thanks, Anthony.
[double post, we got the first one – Anthony]
Christoph Dollis says:
May 19, 2013 at 2:13 pm
“Richard Dawkins, a fantastic and rightly-esteemed scientist in many respects, is fundamentally wrong about global warming. This is an excellent summary of why and also how this error is dangerous to the people of the world in terms of setting policy.”
Well, for some reason Darwin always needs a bulldog, Thomas Huxley, or a Rottweiler, Dawkins. Good luck convincing him of anything he isn’t already convinced off.
The sensitivities are lower for cooler periods and higher for warmer periods. This suggests to me that there is still some natural variability included in the estimates.
Oh, I forgot to add that on Dawkins Foundation’s FB page, you’d be surprised how many of his commenters grow at his pro “climate change” unthinking posts. A lot of them really do get it.
They love him on meme theory and selfish gene theory, and for standing up for human rights (as do I), but climate change and another topic I won’t get into at the moment lose him.
And clouds were modeled how? Why don’t we run these models with various cloud settings? Equatorial wind and SST is teleconnected with greater/lesser reflective clouds. Try it. Run the models with equatorial clouds and without clouds. You can even have your CO2 fudge factor. Send in the clouds.
*groan
Nic Lewis–terrific. Special thanks for the clarification of differences from your previous paper.
Dare we hope from your remarks that AR5 SOD will see further substantial revision, now that the leaked version has been so roundly criticized by so many?
That would seem a litmus test for the current IPCC process, which the Climategate emails show was rigged for AR4. But much has changed since. Climategate, Climate Audit, Climate Etc., WUWT, the pause exceeding the length NASA said falsified the GCM models,…
ECS and TCR are the purest and simplest form of this litmus test for IPCC scientific integrity. Thanks to the work of you, you colleagues, and many others, we now have a clear indicator.
As has been said MANY times, in so many words: if the effects of a little CO2 really were amplified multi-fold by water vapour in a feedback loop, we wouldn’t have lasted a blink of an eye. And yet here we are – life forms – 4 billion years on. Somehow that’s too hard to understand for some. Go figure.
Great work Nic.
I’ve been itching to talk about this for sometime especially give the crap that SkS said about your earlier work
Anthony. that is the big bottom line here. You had cook and company trashing Nic and it appears that 14 IPCC authors think differenly than the Cook and company
@Mosher I agree. Cook and Co. are advocates, so like Romm, they tend to do those sorts of things. Now, it appears Cook and Nuccitelli have reached the level of paid advocates.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with the author because I don’t think C02 at this stage of evidence has ANY effect on atmospheric temperatures: as Prof of Physics Happer said recently with 3000ppm C02 we had an ice age 1000’s of years ago…. So by logic high C02 seems to be related if at all with very LOW mean global temperatures. Also submarines regularly have 3000 ppm atmosphere and everybody seems to be happy down there, so as far as us humans as concerned it ain’t a problem and plants love it. LOL
Nic Lewis,
you are really leaving a footprint in climatescience !
What is your opinion about the massive increase in 0-2000m ocean heat content during the switch to the ARGO system ? Your link above does not show yearly data for that layer (only 5 years averages), but there is a graphic here (posted recently by Willis Eschenbach):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/changes-in-ocean-heat-content-noaa-layers.jpg?w=640
I would say that jump in 0-2000m data (and 0-700m as well) around 2003 is completely implausible, the increase in 3 years is about as much as in the other 37 years of the last 40 years combined. Such an increase would have required an epic decrease in cloud coverage.
Assuming the increase is mostly an error, what effect would this have on the sensitivity fall in the 2000-2009 decade ?
Great article. However, I could not find the link to get the “free” copy from Nature.
I have conducted a simple experiment that proves the fundamental assumption that you can simply sum 2 equal radiative fluxes and use that sum to calculate a temperature using the SB equation is NOT VALID – not meaning to appear rude by using capitals.
I have proved that 2 equal sources of energy capable of heating something to 30 degrees C each – about 478.9 W/sq.metre each – are only capable of heating that same object by an extra few degrees C when both are operating at the same time.
The assumption that you can add these fluxes together to arrive at 957.8 W/sq.metre and calculate a temperature of ~360 K using the SB equation from this sum DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE.
Anthony can contact me and I’ll submit the experiment in Microsoft word document form and anyone is welcome to try it for themselves.
I am confident I am right – not precise in actual measurements – but right in claiming 2 30 degree heat sources simply cannot combine to produce 87 degrees C as a simple sum of the radiative fluxes implies and as is used all the time in climate science !
No, Eliza.
While he doesn’t mention this exact point, Professor Carter in the video I posted above, pointed out that there is a logarithmic curve with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere being less and less per additional unit of increase of CO2. Please see the video starting at the 20:21 mark.
So 3000 ppm is not 10 times more effective in direct greenhouse effects than 300 ppm. CO2 can be both a greenhouse gas and overwhelmed by other temperature forcing factors.
Oh, OK. Link: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/index.html
Well done, Nic!
Cris Dollisto
OK, OK I totally agree with Carters thinking by the way, but empirically I even disagree with him re the earth’s atmosphere which is basically 99% water vapour. I ask you am I right or wrong?. Yes iexcessive Co2 may “attempt” to conserve heat but it does not by data and past evidence, Sorry I have become a blatant denier that C02 has ANY effect of global temperatures. BTW I totally agree with Scafetta re Solar influence and that at this moment the only changing variable is in fact SOLAR (Solar 24 is a minimum SSN on average since 1914?)
In reply to
Mike Jonas says:
May 19, 2013 at 2:14 pm
This Nature letter suffers from the same problem as so many other studies : It is not possible to derive ECS or TCS from observations of temperature if you don’t know what the other drivers of climate are. ie, the letter assumes the temperature is driven by CO2. If in fact something else is driving temperature, then ECs and TCS are simply unknown.
I somewhat agree with you comment. This is however a very important paper. Thank-you Dr. Lewis, for the link to the paper and your enlightening comments concerning the paper.
Best wishes,
William
There is additional data and analysis that needs to be considered. There appears to be a connected set of anomalous observations that require and have a physical explanation.
The IPCC has assumed that 100% of the 20th century warming was caused by atmospheric CO2 increase. It appears that assumption is not correct.
If a significant portion of the 20th century temperature rise was due to solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover, the 20th portion of warming due to CO2 could be significantly less.
It is interesting that the majority of the 20th century warming was in the Arctic and high Northern latitudes which is not in agreement with the general circulation models (GCM). The GCM predicted that the majority of the warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases would be in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space and the largest amount of water to amplify the CO2 forcing.
The regions that warmed in the 20th century, Northern Hemisphere, particularly high latitude regions in the Northern hemisphere is the same regions that the paleo climatic records shows warms and cools cyclically. The paleo climatic specialist call this cyclic Northern Hemispheric warming a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. There are cosmogenic isotopes changes that correlate with the D-O cycles which indicate that solar magnetic cycle changes are somehow causing the D-O cycle. The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23 D-O cycles through the current interglacial and into the last glacial cycle. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years and also occur at 950 years and 1950 years which is 1450 years plus or minus 500 years. This matches an observed cycle of solar variability.
The solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years was the highest in 8000 years and the longest period of high activity in 11,000 years.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
As the solar magnetic cycle is currently slowing down and it appears the sun is going to enter a Maunder like minimum, the solar contribution to the 20th century warming will become known.
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
There is an anomalous delay of 10 to 12 years from the time the solar cycle changes to the first observed cooling when there is a step change in the solar magnetic cycle.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
The specific regions of the planet that warm and cool the most during the D-O cycle is the Northern hemisphere and particularly high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Lindzen and Choi found by analyzing top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean surface temperature changes that the planet resists temperature changes (negative feedback) by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less radiation off into space. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s results the planet resists greenhouse gas forcing changes rather than amplifies greenhouse gas forcing and the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming (the extreme greenhouse forcing theory requires that greenhouse gas forcing – any greenhouse gas – will cause there to be an increase in water vapor in the tropical troposphere at around 8 km above the surface of the planet. This increase in water vapor will amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming in the last 15 years.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
Based on past on analysis of the paleo temperature record and past solar magnetic cycle changes and GCR changes it is estimated that 0.47C of the 20th century temperature rise is due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
“We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle… Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”
There has been 16 years in which atmospheric CO2 has risen and there is no increase in planetary temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
As it appears the solar magnetic cycle is now anomalously slowing down, we will likely have an opportunity to determine by observation what portion of the 20th century warming was cause by solar magnetic cycle changes.
It appears that there is now the first observational evidence of cooling in high latitude regions of the Northern hemisphere.
This site and Global Warming Policy Foundation are my two favorite sites in large part to a free copy of Steve Goreham’s Mad,Mad,Mad World of Climatism that got me interested in climate change.The science and the economics are driving to a conclusion that will save the world from those socialist CAGW bastards. Keep up the good work and thanks.
You must consider : this ‘article’ and recent climate studies that could well further discredit the IPCC ‘agenda’ and the current US administration ( think EPA ) will have no bearing on the outlook of the general public wrt ‘global warming’ and NOTHING will change the minds of the AGW cult. The liberal media will keep these findings out of print and off the airwaves, also, those who have bought into the church of fraud will NEVER change their minds – they will hold the political position they have bought into no matter what current science or solar physics ‘finds’. Such will take their position to the grave with them.
Come to Seattle and just try and get ANY of the liberal media to report these findings, and then try and convince the state governor, mayor of Seattle, city council, county council or university types to even listen to such findings. The democrats laugh here, knowing they have sold and delivered the goods on climate and the ship of fools will sail on.
So, this article really accomplishes nothing. Interesting and clarifying science it may be, but let me hear you argue how this will ‘change’ anything. Do you see the current president rushing to hold a press conference to announce a complete make over of the EPA where he states that the above study has forced him to abandon his administration’s previous position on ‘global warming’ ?
Do you ?
Its less worse than we thought. Maybe a lot less worse.
Steven Mosher, Roman M
Thanks!
Gary Pearse
“The sensitivities are lower for cooler periods and higher for warmer periods. This suggests to me that there is still some natural variability included in the estimates.”
Yes, but the uncertainty ranges allow for natural internal variability. Results from the 1970s are most affected, because the changes in forcing and temperature (from 1860-79) involved were smallest for that (cold) decade. And the 1990s were probably more affected than other decades by imbalanced ENSO and volcanic activity. The 2000s had little volcanic activity and a reasonable ENSO balance, as well as the highest forcing and temperature changes. And results from the 2000s and from the long 1970-2009 period, which should be much less affected by natural internal variability, are quite closely in line.
The reasons to be a skeptic appear to be building up faster and faster with each passing week. It is hard to not pay attention to these studies and papers in recent weeks.
Manfred
“Assuming the increase [in ocean heat content around 2003] is mostly an error, what effect would this have on the sensitivity fall in the 2000-2009 decade ?”
I don’t have a simple answer to that, but I am planning a post about ocean heat content estimates. It is a tricky area.
This study assumes the forcings that caused the temperature change were greenhouse gas emissions, aerosols and volcanoes. Volcanoes have no effect on the long term trends. This completely ignores the overwhelming evidence that solar magnetic effects have caused at least half of the 20th century warming. The omission of any solar magnetic effects has been described as “omitted variable fraud” by Alec Rawls:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
The helio-magnetic field strength has increased by a factor of 9 from 1895 to 1991.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Rao_CR_HMF.jpg
A paper by Nir Shaviv 2005 titled “On Climate Response To Changes In The Cosmic Ray Flux And Radiative Budget” was rated “Endorsement Level: 2 by the Cook et al survey and is included in the alleged 97% of papers supporting the AGW alarmism. The abstract says “the [Cosmic Ray Flux] CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19K,…” This is 60% of the 0.8 C 20th century warming. [I think CRF and solar luminosity are only part of the total solar effects.]
Total solar effects are about 7 times greater than what can be explained by changes in TSI.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=425
The method of comparing greenhouse gas forcing to temperature or heat content to determine climate sensitivity should only be applied to periods when there was little solar forcing, such as from 1960 to 1975, after 2002, or before 1895. The maximum warming response of a century of increasing solar forcing is delayed about 11 years after the maximum solar magnetic forcing due to the large heat capacity of the oceans. The maximum helio-magnetic field strength in 1991 causes a maximum temperature response in 2002. There has been global cooling since 2002 despite increasing CO2 emissions.
Nice job Nic with the new paper.
The BBC has an article on the paper too (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023). Your lead author (Otto) is quoted as being largely defensive of the status quo and says that although the short-term rates of warming will be lower, over the long-term the models still produce a range of 0.9-5.0C. That is, given enough time warming rates will be back to what the IPCC earlier predicted. Questions: Why are not the long-term warming rates similarly reduced?
Nic,
Thanks for the great work and clear explanation.
I look forward to seeing an update with data to the present.
I am amazed.
More than an hour ago I claimed that it is invalid to simply add up radiative fluxes and calculate a blackbody temperature using the SB equation.
I claimed a simple experiment proved this and anyone can do it.
If valid it proves the greenhouse effect is insignificant and all the thought bubbles are irrelevant.
Yet everyone still continues on hypothesising without even thinking about actually trying an actual simple experiment claimed to disprove one of the fundamental propositions of the greenhouse effect.
Amazing !
four more authors and they could have held a soccer match.
Not that the two models are congruent, but consider for a moment, your own body. I weigh 140 lbs, or 63.5029 kg. When I have a headache or a fever, I take a couple ibuprofen. To be precise, I take 400 mg of ibuprofen. In other words, I have a body mass of 635029 g, and I need 0.4 g of ibuprofen to bring down a headache or a fever. Wolfram Alpha tells me that puts the amount of ibuprofen in my body at the time that it’s working is 0.00006299%, or 62.9 ppm.
I was in the hospital to get my spleen out, once. I was 120 pounds at the time, or 54.4311 kg. While I was there, they gave me a morphine drip that would administer 10 mg doses of morphine to me. That puts me at 544311 g and the morphine at 0.01 g, 1.837 ppm.
Again, I don’t intend to conflate the human body into a system as complex and multi-faceted as the climate of the world, but I think it’s important to have some perspective with regard to just how little of a substance is really necessary to make a large impact.
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 4:10 pm
The solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years was the highest in 8000 years and the longest period of high activity in 11,000 years.
You didn’t learn a thing. So, here goes again:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf :
“our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today. …
Solanki et al. combine radiocarbon (14C) data, visually observed sunspot numbers and models to extend the historical sunspot record over the Holocene. They exclude the most recent 100 years of the 14C record, which are influenced by 14C-depleted fossil-fuel emissions and atomic-bomb tests conducted since AD 1950. …
irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today. …
our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years. …
Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
As I said the whole question has recently been re-examined by a panel of experts at a workshop dedicated to this problem: Leif Svalgaard, Mike Lockwood, Jürg Beer, Andre Balogh, Paul Charbonneau, Ed Cliver, Nancy Crooker, Marc DeRosa, Ken McCracken, Matt Owens, Pete Riley, George Siscoe, Sami Solanki, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Ilya Usoskin, and Yi-Ming Wang. The conclusion is that recent solar activity was not exceptionally high. Around 1780, activity seems to have been even higher than today.
Since the Sun has not behaved in a way compatible with your other references, they are now moot and irrelevant. I think I have pointed all this out several times, but you have a hard time coming to grips with reality.
One more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf :
“The solar modulation maximum around 1780 AD indicated by the 14C and 10Be data was on the level of the second part of the 20th century or even higher. …
“The cosmogenic radio-nuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period [just] before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”
So, it is time to bury the wrong notion of recent exceptionally high solar activity. This is, of course, difficult to do because once people have locked on to ‘findings’ that confirm their agenda and beliefs, they get stuck on the wrong science and can’t give it up. You are a good example of someone afflicted with that syndrome.
Well done Nic. Keep chipping away.
nvw
Thanks!
You refer to the BBC article and ask, in the light of the quote by the lead author (Otto) “Why are not the long-term warming rates similarly reduced?”
You will have to address that question to Alex Otto. Maybe he was getting confused. Maybe the BBC misquoted him.
I stand by what I say in my concluding paragraph. If instead of a 5-95% uncertainty range one takes the 17-83% (IPCC ‘likely’) range of 2-4.5 deg. C for equilibrium (long-term) climate sensitivity, per both AR4 and the leaked AR5 second draft, then the correct comparison is with 17-83% uncertainty ranges from the Nature Geosciene study. On my own calculations, those are 1.5-2.8 C using data for 2000-09 (arguably the most reliable, and best constrained, estimate), or 1.3-3.0 K using data for 1970-2009 (less well constrained due to lower average forcing, but a longer period). To my mind, either of those ranges represents a sizeable downwards movement from 2.0-4.5 K.
nvw asks “Questions: Why are not the long-term warming rates similarly reduced?”
Simple. By the time these long-term “whatevers” are going to start appearing,you,I, and our grandkids will be nothing but dust. I predict that by 2150, the buck will not be worth a duck. Prove me wrong.
Ken Gregory says:
May 19, 2013 at 4:45 pm
The helio-magnetic field strength has increased by a factor of 9 from 1895 to 1991.
No, it has not: see figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
I have been at the Guardian and I see that their article does not appear in their Climate Change page. I must have missed something but I did click refresh. Does anyone know what I might be doing wrong?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/19/climate-change-meltdown-unlikely-research
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 5:22 pm
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 4:10 pm
The solar magnetic cycle activity in the last 70 years was the highest in 8000 years and the longest period of high activity in 11,000 years.
You didn’t learn a thing. So, here goes again:
You confusing what you are repeating with what happened physically in the past and what is happening currently.
The 2007 paper you quote is not correct. (The 2007 paper asserts that the 1999, 2001, and 2004 papers are not correct. The analysis use Be10 analysis in Antarctic to challenge the Greenland Ice sheet analysis and ignores the fact the ocean sediment analysis and dendrochronological analysis supports the 1999, 2001, and 2004 papers. It is sad it is possible to find reviewers who will support warmist propaganda.)
Quite obviously, it was easy in 2007 to get a paper published that asserts solar activity in the 20th century was not the highest in 8000 years. (There is a cottage industry to try adjust observations and theory to push the extreme AGW theory.) In 2013, following 16 years of no planetary temperature rise there is an anomaly that requires explanation. There have been a series of papers published each with a different hypothesis to try to explain why there is a lack of warming for 16 years.
I can explain why the paper you quote is incorrect, however I see no point. I cannot change your mind. Others in the forum will not understand the detail issues.
I do not need however to defend my assertion using theoretical arguments.
I am asserting and quite certain, based on my understanding of the mechanisms that the same regions that warmed during the 20th century will now cool due to the abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle.
The cooling of the same regions will unequivocally prove the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is correct.
You also seem obvious to the other observations and logical arguments that support the assertion that I supporting. (i.e. The warming and cooling occurs cyclically in the paleoclimatic record. The same regions that warmed in during a D-O cycle are the same regions that warmed during the 20th century. If the 20th century warming has primarily caused by the increase in CO2 the majority of the warming would have occurred in the tropics not in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere and so on.)
As the solar magnetic cycle is currently slowing down and it appears the sun is going to enter a Maunder like minimum, the solar contribution to the 20th century warming will become known.
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
There is an anomalous delay of 10 to 12 years from the time the solar cycle changes to the first observed cooling when there is a step change in the solar magnetic cycle.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
The specific regions of the planet that warm and cool the most during the D-O cycle is the Northern hemisphere and particularly high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Lindzen and Choi found by analyzing top of the atmosphere radiation Vs ocean surface temperature changes that the planet resists temperature changes (negative feedback) by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less radiation off into space. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s results the planet resists greenhouse gas forcing changes rather than amplifies greenhouse gas forcing and the fact that there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming (the extreme greenhouse forcing theory requires that greenhouse gas forcing – any greenhouse gas – will cause there to be an increase in water vapor in the tropical troposphere at around 8 km above the surface of the planet. This increase in water vapor will amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming in the last 16 years.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
Based on past on analysis of the paleo temperature record and past solar magnetic cycle changes and GCR changes it is estimated that 0.47C of the 20th century temperature rise is due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
“We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle… Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”
There has been 16 years in which atmospheric CO2 has risen and there is no increase in planetary temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
As it appears the solar magnetic cycle is now anomalously slowing down, we will likely have an opportunity to determine by observation what portion of the 20th century warming was cause by solar magnetic cycle changes.
Congratulations, Nic, on your work on this paper. If the central estimates for TCR and ECS from these papers turn out to be correct, it looks like we have a better chance of being able to avoid the 2 deg C of warming that most scientists agree to be roughly the major danger threshhold, assuming that we do work pretty diligently to gradually wean ourselves off of fossil fuels over the next several decades (or implement sequestration, etc.)
That is certainly a more optimistic assessment than one would get if the middle- or high-end IPCC numbers were to turn out to be correct…in which case we are pretty screwed…and would need to be much more aggressive in stopping, or even reversing, the rise in CO2.
I’m not completely sure I understand what the 2C relates to. It sounds like that is the warming for a doubling of CO2 without any other considerations. However, as long as we burn fossil fuels and as long as 3rd world countries are burning charcoal, etc. there will be aerosols released as well. and, if I’ve understood this estimate correctly, these aerosols will continue to cancel out some of the warming. Hence, any real warming will be less that 2C. Have I got that right?
And, to top it off, if any of the warming is absorbed into the deep oceans, then that warming will also disappear. The bottom line is we still have no idea how much warming will actually occur (if any).
Richard M says:
There are also other greenhouse gases, like CH4, which contribute warming…So, I think, roughly speaking, the effect of the aerosols and of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases may about cancel. (Aerosols and CH4 also have a shorter perturbation time in the atmosphere…whereas a perturbation in CO2 levels lasts a long time.)
Warming doesn’t “disappear” by going into the deep oceans. It might get delayed…i.e., it will take longer to warm if more goes into the deep oceans than we expect and will warm more rapidly if less goes into the deep oceans than we expect. But, the ECS will not depend on this rate of transfer to the deep oceans. [What might be true is that certain diagnostic methods for trying to estimate the ECS might be off if the transfers to the deep ocean are either less or more than expected…but that’s another kettle of fish.]
But CO2 isn’t “working” chemically the way drugs are. it isn’t even a catalyst. It’s just a physical blocker–and one whose effect decreases logarithmically.
This whole thing is playing out like a Douglas Adams sub-plot. Not meaning to detract from Nic’s fine work, but really an analysis by two lesser known figures based on existing data shouldn’t have global policy implications. But lo and behold…
joeldshore says:
May 19, 2013 at 7:34 pm
————————-
Hey Joel, how come you weren’t bullshitting about deep ocean warming five years ago ??
…. I suppose that another kettle of f**king fish too.
Give it up dude.
Yes, “indistinguishable from zero” is less than 2 degrees, but please do carry on with the mental masturbation.
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:47 pm
You confusing what you are repeating with what happened physically in the past and what is happening currently.
Here we go again:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf :
“our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today. …
Solanki et al. combine radiocarbon (14C) data, visually observed sunspot numbers and models to extend the historical sunspot record over the Holocene. They exclude the most recent 100 years of the 14C record, which are influenced by 14C-depleted fossil-fuel emissions and atomic-bomb tests conducted since AD 1950. …
irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today. …
our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years. …
Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
As I said the whole question has recently been re-examined by a panel of experts at a workshop dedicated to this problem: Leif Svalgaard, Mike Lockwood, Jürg Beer, Andre Balogh, Paul Charbonneau, Ed Cliver, Nancy Crooker, Marc DeRosa, Ken McCracken, Matt Owens, Pete Riley, George Siscoe, Sami Solanki, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Ilya Usoskin, and Yi-Ming Wang. The conclusion is that recent solar activity was not exceptionally high. Around 1780, activity seems to have been even higher than today.
Since the Sun has not behaved in a way compatible with your other references, they are now moot and irrelevant. I think I have pointed all this out several times, but you have a hard time coming to grips with reality.
One more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf :
“The solar modulation maximum around 1780 AD indicated by the 14C and 10Be data was on the level of the second part of the 20th century or even higher. …
“The cosmogenic radio-nuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period [just] before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”
So, it is time to bury the wrong notion of recent exceptionally high solar activity. This is, of course, difficult to do because once people have locked on to ‘findings’ that confirm their agenda and beliefs, they get stuck on the wrong science and can’t give it up. You are a good example of someone afflicted with that syndrome.
MSM has moved on! no doubt this is based on older studies:
20 May: Sydney Morning Herald Bloomberg: Rising heat to increase NY deaths: Nature study
Manhattan may see deaths from heat rise by as much as 20 per cent in the 2020s and 90 per cent by the 2080s in a worst-case scenario, a study found.
The study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, was done by Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the Mailman School of Public Health. Higher winter temperatures may cut cold-related mortality, though net temperature-related deaths may still climb by a third by the 2080s, according to a statement detailing the findings.
“This serves as reminder that heat events are one of the greatest hazards faced by urban populations around the globe,” said Radley Horton, a climate scientist at the Earth Institute’s Center for Climate Systems Research and a co-author…
Daily records from Central Park in New York show that average monthly temperatures increased 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2000, the statement said. Last year was the warmest on record in Manhattan, it said. In cities, heat is concentrated by buildings and pavement. The temperature in New York is expected to climb by as much as 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2050s, the statement said…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-heat-to-increase-ny-deaths-nature-study-20130520-2jvbb.html
I am curious how the redaction will unfold as the Northern Hemisphere, particularly the high latitude northern regions cool.
The following are the first baby steps. There will likely be some heated discussion to see if this new result can be excluded from AR-5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.
“The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before.”
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
“It is a bigger range of uncertainty,” said Dr Otto.
“But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t.”
It appears the IPCC have not read Lindzen and Choi’s (2011, 2009) or Idso 1998 which both find that planet resist forcing changes, rather than amplify forcing changes.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … ….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 8:45 pm
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:47 pm
You confusing what you are repeating with what happened physically in the past and what is happening currently.
Here we go again:
William:
What will your response be to cooling?
As I said, there is observational evidence that the Northern hemisphere, in particular northern high latitudes regions have started to cool.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record which correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes.
Comment:
An example that redaction does not invalidate a result is the gradual acceptance in the geomagnetic field that are cyclic, frequent, and rapid geomagnetic excursions. It took roughly a decade for that observational anomaly to be accepted.
Which of the following papers need to be redacted?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. See the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles in the data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 9:32 pm
As I said, there is observational evidence that the Northern hemisphere, in particular northern high latitudes regions have started to cool.
So what? The climate warms and cools all the time.
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf …
“This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.”
There is no such precise clock.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf :
“Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.” …
Therefore, HSG provides relatively little data supporting actual 1500-year intervals of climate variability in either the Holocene or last glacial. The number is likely an artifact of averaging and seems to have little statistical justification.”
Ken Gregory says:
May 19, 2013 at 4:45 pm
The helio-magnetic field strength has increased by a factor of 9 from 1895 to 1991.
lsvalgaard says at 6:42 pm: No, it has not: see figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
My comment included a link to a graph of helio-magnetic field (HMF) strength published as Fig. 1 from R.U. Rao January 2011paper at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Rao-GCR_GW.pdf
The 1895 value was 1 nT, the 1991 value was 9 nT, giving the factor of 9. The paper says the HMF data was reproduced from two McCracken’s papers. The figure 10 in your paper roughly matches the Rao data from 1910 onward. You have 1991 value of 9.1 nT which agrees with the Rao value. However, the Rao graph shows values under 2 nT from 1890 to 1895, but your values are 4.7 and above. Why the large discrepancy between the two papers in this time period?
Using your numbers, The HMF strength increase from 4.06 nT in 1901 to 9.07 nT in 1991, or by a factor of 2.23.
Ken Gregory says:
May 19, 2013 at 10:29 pm
The paper says the HMF data was reproduced from two McCracken’s papers….Why the large discrepancy between the two papers in this time period?
I just returned from a workshop where McCracken noted that his earlier values were incorrect. His re-examination of the data shows substantial agreement with my paper.
Using your numbers, The HMF strength increase from 4.06 nT in 1901 to 9.07 nT in 1991, or by a factor of 2.23.
Is somewhat meaningless as you pick a solar cycle minimum point and compare with a solar cycle maximum point. In every cycle there is a variation by a factor of two from minimum to maximum.
James Annan mentioned a new paper by Stott et al (open access) that concludes the upper 95% bounds on temperature increase of the climate models are too high:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024
I was unable to work out a transient climate response from their estimates, but they seem to be implying a lower estimate than the current IPCC one.
William Astley – Thanks for your long and informative comment (19 May 4:10pm). I won’t argue with the idea that Nic Lewis’ paper is important, but I wonder why … presumably it is politically important (pity it’s too late for AR5), because the science is, to my mind, very dubious. Later in your comment, you say “increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes“. I have to disagree with that last part – there is a very visible cyclical (or apparently cyclical) effect in the temperature record of the last 150 or so years. This appears to have contributed a lot to the 20thC temperature, because 2 of its upward phases occurred in the 20thC and only one downward phase.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jonas1@westnet.com.au/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
[In this graph I called the phases “PDO” because they seemed to correlate, but I only used a multi-segment least-squares linear trend fit for the trend lines. (Someone posted a much better graph than this one recently, but I can’t find it).]
We don’t know how much this apparent cycle contributed to 20thC temperature because we don’t know enough about it, but eyeballing the graph would suggest that it could have contributed all of the balance after your “0.47 +/-0.19C”.
Two papers on line provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/. It shows, with simple calculations, how a tiny change in low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny change. (The other half of the temperature change is from natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy of the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
No disrespect intended to Nic Lewis, I consider all the claims regarding the ability to assess climate sensitivity disingenuous, even bordering on the dishonest.
It may be possible to calculate how CO2 behaves in laboratory conditions and hence to calculate a theoretical warming in relation to increasing CO2 levels in laboratory conditions. But that is not the real world.
In the real world, increased concentrations of CO2 would theoretically block a certain proportion of incoming solar insolation so that less solar radiance is absorbed by the ground and oceans, and it would also increase the rate of out going radiation at TOA. Both of these are potentially cooling factors. Thus the first issue is whether in real world conditions the theoretical laboratory ‘heat trapping’ effect of CO2 exceeds the ‘cooling’ effects of CO2 blocking incoming solar irradiance and increasing radiation at TOA and if so, by how much? The second issue is far more complex, namely the inter-relationship with other gases in the atmosphere, whether it is swamped by the hydrological cycle, and what effect it may have on the rate of convection at various altitudes and/or whether convection effectively outstrips any ‘heat trapping’ effect of CO2 carrying the warmer air away and upwards to the upper atmosphere where the ‘heat’ is radiated to space. None of those issues can be assessed in the laboratory, and can only be considered in real world conditions by way of empirical observational data.
The problem with making an assessment based upon observational data is that it is a hapless task since the data sets are either too short and/or have been horribly bastardised by endless adjustments, siting issues, station drop outs and polluted by UHI and/or we do not have accurate data on aerosol emissions and/or upon clouds. Quite simply data sets of sufficiently high quality do not exist, and therefore as a matter of fact no worthwhile assessment can be made..
The nub of the issue is that it is simply impossible to determine a value for climate sensitivity from observation data until absolutely everything is known and understood about natural variation, what its various constituent components are, the forcings of each and every individual component and whether the individual component concerned operates positively or negatively, and the upper and lower bounds of the forcings associated with each and every one of its constituent components.
This is logically and necessarily the position, since until one can look at the data set (thermometer or proxy) and identify the extent of each change in the data set and say with certainty to what extent, if any, that change was (or was not) brought about by natural variation, one cannot extract the signal of climate sensitivity from the noise of natural variation.
I seem to recall that one of the Team recognised the problem and at one time observed “”Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.”
We do not know whether at this stage of the Holocene adding more CO2 does anything, or, if it does, whether it warms or cools the atmosphere (or for that matter the oceans). Anyone who claims that they know and/or can properly assess the effect of CO2 in real world conditions is being disengenuous.
For what it is worth, 33 years worth of satellite data (which shows that temperatures were essentially flat between 1979 and 1997 and between 1999 to date and demonstrates no correlation between CO2 and temperature) suggests that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is so low that it is indistinguishable from zero. But that observation should be viewed with caution since it is based upon a very short data set, and we do not have sufficient data on aerosols or clouds to enable a firm conclusion to be drawn.
Richard Verney said
“For what it is worth, 33 years worth of satellite data (which shows that temperatures were essentially flat between 1979 and 1997 and between 1999 to date and demonstrates no correlation between CO2 and temperature) suggests that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is so low that it is indistinguishable from zero. But that observation should be viewed with caution since it is based upon a very short data set, and we do not have sufficient data on aerosols or clouds to enable a firm conclusion to be drawn”
Reconstructed CET to 1538 overlaid with official co2 data seem to support your assertion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
I will be at the Met Office archives in Exeter in the next hour as I try to push the CET reconstruction back a couple of more centuries and determine the transition between the MWP to LIA.
In the meantime I am continually struck as to the extremes in the past-much more so than today-and the very heavy rainfall episodes experienced here in the UK.
tonyb
‘… assuming that we do work pretty diligently to gradually wean ourselves off of fossil fuels …’ Joel Shore.
================================
Relative price to the consumer, compared to other forms of energy without government subsidies and other free-market distortions, will determine the future of fossil fuels — nothing else. Everyone knows that.
I have an article in the Times (London) on this new Otto et al paper and its implications for policy.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3769210.ece
quote from my article: “The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too. That is to say, up until my teenage children reach retirement age, they will have experienced further warming at about the same rate as I have experienced since I was at school.”
Further to my post at 12:09 am, in which I suggest that it is impossible to assess climate sensitivity until we fully understand natural variation, consider a few examples from the thermometer record (Hadcrut 4) before the rapid increase in manmade CO2 emissions.
1. Between 1877 and 1878, the temperature anomaly change is positive 1.1degC (from -0.7 to +0.4C). To produce that change requires a massive forcing. That change was not caused by increased CO2 emissions, nor by reduced aerosol emissions. May be it was an El Nino year (I have not checked but no doubt Bob may clarify) but we need to be able to explain what forcings were in play that brought about that change, because those forcings may operate at other times (to more or less extent).
2. Between 1853 and 1862 temperatures fell by about 0.6degC. What caused this change? Presumably it was not an increase in aerosol emissions. So what natural forcings were in play? Again one can see a similar cooling trend between about 1880 and about 1890, which may to some extent have been caused by Krakatoa, but if so what would the temperature have been but for Krakatoa?
3. Between about 1861 to 1869 there was an increase in temperatures of about 0.4degC. What caused this warming that decade. It is unlikely to be related to any significant increase in CO2 emissions and/or reduction in aerosol emissions. How do we know that the forcings that brought about that change were not in play (perhaps to an even greater level since we do not know the upper bounds of those forcings) during the late 1970s to late 1990s?
4. Between about 1908 and 1915 again there is about 0.4degC warming. What caused this warming during this period. Are they the same forcings that were in play during the period 1861 to 1969, or are they different forcings? It is unlikely to be related to any significant increase in CO2 emissions and/or reduction in aerosol emissions. How do we know that the forcings that brought about this change were not in play (perhaps to an even greater level since we do not know the upper bounds of those forcings) during the late 1970s to late 1990s? If the forcings that were operative during the period 1908 to 1915 were different to those that were operative during 1861 to 1869 can all these forcings collectively operate at the same time, and if so How do we know that the forcings that brought about that change were not in play during the late 1970s to late 1990s?
One could go through the entire thermometer record and make similar observations about each and every change in that record. But my point is that until one fully understands natural variability (all its forcings and the upper and lower bounds of such and their inter-relationship with one another), it is impossible to attribute any change in the record to CO2 emissions (or for that matter manmade aerosol emissions). Until one can completely eliminate natural variability, the signal of climate sensitivity to CO2 cannot be extracted from the noise of natural variation. Period!
“The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.”
Many thanks to Nic Lewis for his thorough analysis. He seems to cut through a lot of the bias and manipulation.
What I don’t follow here is that figure S3 that Anthony added at the end seems to in accord with AR5 leaked values.
Is Nic saying he has a difference of opinion with what is shown in the paper ?
Good commetns from Richard Verney – thank you..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/a-compilation-of-lower-climate-sensitivities-plus-a-new-one/#comment-1289118
I have a serious problem with the entire concept of “climate sensitivity”. I think it could actually be more ”cargo cult” than atmospheric physics.
Here is my problem:
Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature T at ALL time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~~600 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.
When I studied this subject in 2007-2008, the only signal I was able to derive from the modern data was that [dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with T and CO2 lags T by 9 months].
This physical reality has since been widely accepted, but dismissed as a “feedback effect”.
This is like saying you cannot hear the orchestra, but you can clearly hear the piccolo.
I say you ARE hearing the orchestra – atmospheric CO2 lags temperature because temperature drives CO2.
The observed rise in CO2 may indeed have a significant humanmade component – but is probably driven much more by deforestation than fossil fuel combustion.
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/the-pitfalls-of-data-smoothing/#comment-1265693
When I first pointed out this relationship in January 2008 (dCO2/dt varies with T and CO2 lags T by 9 months), it was deemed incorrect.
Then it was accepted as valid by some on the warmist side of this debate, but dismissed as a “feedback”.
This “feedback argument” appears to be a “cargo cult” rationalization, derived as follows:
“We KNOW that CO2 drives Temperature, therefore it MUST BE a feedback.”
More below from 2009:
__________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#comment-77000
Time is limited so I can only provide some more general answers to your questions:
My paper was posted Jan.31/08 with a spreadsheet at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
The paper is located at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
The relevant spreadsheet is
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
There are many correlations calculated in the spreadsheet.
In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt closely coincides with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature LT and Surface Temperature ST. I believe that the temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet there is this clear correlation.
After publishing this paper, I also demonstrated the same correlation with different datasets – using Mauna Loa CO2 and Hadcrut3 ST going back to 1958. More recently I examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde.
Further, I found (actually I was given by Richard Courtney) earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) that discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.
See also Roy Spencer’s (U of Alabama, Huntsville) take on this subject at
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
This subject has generated much discussion among serious scientists, and this discussion continues. Almost no one doubts the dCO2/dt versus LT (and ST) correlation. Some go so far as to say that humankind is not even the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 – that it is natural. Others rely on a “material balance argument” (mass balance argument) to refute this claim – I think these would be in the majority. I am an agnostic on this question, to date.
The warmist side also has also noted this ~9 month delay, but try to explain it as a “feedback effect” – this argument seems more consistent with AGW religious dogma than with science (“ASSUMING AGW is true, then it MUST be feedback”). 🙂
It is interesting to note, however, that the natural seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 ranges up to ~16ppm in the far North, whereas the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only ~2ppm. This reality tends to weaken the “material balance argument”. This seasonal ‘sawtooth” of CO2 is primarily driven by the Northern Hemisphere landmass, which is much greater in area than that of the Southern Hemisphere. CO2 falls during the NH summer due primarily to land-based photosynthesis, and rises in the late fall, winter and early spring as biomass degrades.
There is also likely to be significant CO2 solution and exsolution from the oceans.
See the excellent animation at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is also interesting to note that the detailed signals we derive from the data show that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~~600 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.
Regards, Allan
“Wolfram Alpha tells me that puts the amount of ibuprofen in my body at the time that it’s working is 0.00006299%, or 62.9 ppm.”
Josh, Earth is not experiencing an addition of 62.9ppm of CO2 in a sudden so the comparison is not relevant regardless of whether CO2 has or has not a temperature effect.
An ECS of ~ 2C also agrees with a fit I once made to model the temperature dependence of the HADCRUT4 data to CO2 data with feedbacks and including the heat inertia of the oceans. See posting here.
A Calculation of annual warming due to measured Mauna Loa CO2 increases taking into account time lags favors a climate feedback value of 2 W/m2K-1 if post 1958 warming is entirely due to CO2. If instead a 60 year oscillation is superimposed the feedback value is likely 1.5 W/m2K-1 or less.
A prediction can then be made for future long term temperatures calculated using IPCC emissions scenario A1B for future CO2 levels. Let’s assume that after 2100 emissions fall as non-carbon energy sources (e.g. nuclear fusion) are adopted leading to a peak CO2 concentration of 800ppm followed by a gradual fall in CO2 levels as the Oceans re-absorb excess CO2. The peak rise in temperature would then occur around 2250 with a maximum increase above pre-industrial levels of 3.4(2.0) degrees C. Thereafter CO2 levels and temperatures slowly revert back to natural levels over another 1000 years. By that time we will probably have the onset of another major glaciation to worry about !
climatereason says:
May 20, 2013 at 12:16 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tony
You are undertaking an extremely worthwhile exercise with CET, I am very impressed.
I consider that many fail to appreciate the extent of natural variability (and the underlying strength of forcings that have brought about that change).
I have often posted to the effect that the holy grail of cliimate science is the proper appreciation and understanding of natural variability. We need to fully know and understand this and its bounds. It is only after we possess a full understanding of natural variability that we can begin to eliminate it from the various data sets and thence extract a response signal (if any) to CO2.
joeldshore says:
May 19, 2013 at 7:34 pm
There are also other greenhouse gases, like CH4, which contribute warming…So, I think, roughly speaking, the effect of the aerosols and of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases may about cancel. (Aerosols and CH4 also have a shorter perturbation time in the atmosphere…whereas a perturbation in CO2 levels lasts a long time.)
Joel, that is not how I understood the article, and why I asked my specific question. The article looks at all warming. Hence, any of the warming create by other non-CO2 GHGs are also included in this estimate.
That is also why some people have objected to the article. The analysis only tells us what amount of warming we can expect given an estimated cooling effect of aerosol emissions. And, given ocean oscillations were generally in their warm modes for many of the periods examined. It is possible that none of the warming is due to GHGs at all.
It should be possible to consider ocean oscillations, at least the primary ones (AMO and PDO/ENSO). Of the time periods studied only one is somewhat neutral. The 1980-1989 had a positive PDO and a negative AMO. All the others were biased in one direction or the other. Of course, this assumes both oscillations are equal and I suspect the PDO/ENSO is actually stronger. However, using 1980-1989 would appear to give us the best estimate vs. any of the other periods.
Allan MacRae:It is also interesting to note that the detailed signals we derive from the data show that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~~600 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.
I recently started to have another look at the d/dt CO2 question. There is no lag in rate of change and this in accordance with basic water/air equilibration which takes a matter of hours.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
There is a lag in the longer response that is likely due to deeper water turnover.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=254
Now if there is a lag on the decadal time-scale it becomes hard to support CO2 driving temperature.
Allan MacRae: It is interesting to note, however, that the natural seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 ranges up to ~16ppm in the far North, whereas the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only ~2ppm.
Another reason to suggest it is drive by out-gassing in colder waters. Tropical SST is more stable and contains less CO2 that colder polar waters.
There is a striking similarity between AO index and CO2 at MLO in the middle of the Pacific.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=231
This also suggests a dominant polar influence of atmospheric CO2
I have a question about the report: in Table S2 the total system heat uptake for the 2000’s is 0.65 (±0.27) W/m2, a tripling of the values for the previous decades. That is not in the upper 700 m which don’t show much heat uptake over the past decade, thus all in the deeper oceans, where measurements are scarce and unreliable.
The deep oceans thus are responsible for the offset of the 1.95 W/m2 extra radiation from the increase in GHGs, without affecting the upper oceans layer?
How is that possible?
Greg Goodman says:
May 20, 2013 at 3:04 am
Another reason to suggest it is drive by out-gassing in colder waters. Tropical SST is more stable and contains less CO2 that colder polar waters.
The seasonal changes are definitely linked to the NH mid to high latitude growth and wane of forests and crops. The 13C/12C seasonal ratio changes are opposite to the CO2 level changes, thus vegetation related, not ocean related. The Ferrel cells bring CO2 from the mid-latitudes to the high North stations, which makes that the change is mostly visible there, but measurements at 1000 m height over the Black Forest (Schauinsland, Germany) did show larger seasonal variations than Barrow, AK, USA.
Joel Shore says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:48 pm
“Congratulations, Nic, on your work on this paper. If the central estimates for TCR and ECS from these papers turn out to be correct, it looks like we have a better chance of being able to avoid the 2 deg C of warming that most scientists agree to be roughly the major danger threshhold, assuming that we do work pretty diligently to gradually wean ourselves off of fossil fuels over the next several decades (or implement sequestration, etc.)
That is certainly a more optimistic assessment than one would get if the middle- or high-end IPCC numbers were to turn out to be correct…in which case we are pretty screwed…and would need to be much more aggressive in stopping, or even reversing, the rise in CO2.”
So 2 degree C is the critical threshold, say climate scientists and Joel Shore. I guess that means 2 deg C of warming. what IPCC climate scientists and Joel Shore are not talking about is what this is in temperature, i.e., what the “normal” “average global temperature” is they refer to.
What is the average temperature of the planet?
Schellnhuber said 15.3 deg C in 2009. He knew the average temperature of the planet to a decimal.
The IPCC said 14.5 deg C in 2007. They also knew the temperature to a decimal.
So, while IPCC climate scientists know for a fact that a threshold of exactly 2.0 deg C warming must not be crossed, they obviously do not agree on what the “average global temperature” is, with deviations of a whopping 0.8 deg C.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/31/temperature-charts-reveal-astounding-cluelessness-among-top-scientists-on-real-global-temperature
And that’s the reason why they all talk about climate sensitivity and warming and anomalies without ever specifying at which “average global temperature” problems are expected to occur. It makes their doom-mongering business so much easier.
So, Joel, would you please give us the exact “average global temperature” at which the dangerous threshold is crossed, and not the “2 degrees warming” from an unspecified baseline.
I’m amazed at how people reading this blog, people that should be well familiar with the work of Bob Tisdale, one of its more active contributors, still manage to just blank out completely when reading about ‘climate sensitivity’.
Look, the entire rise in global temperatures since ~1970-75 can be derived from Pacific oceanic processes and their global atmospheric propagation. After the great Pacific climate shift (1976-79) evidently forced the world to switch from a La Niña-favored response regime to an El Niño-favored one, there have only been two (2) global upward shifts in temperatures relative to the NINO3.4 SSTa (representing the part of the ENSO pendulum (the central/eastern one) with the strongest signal), following it slavishly for the rest of the time, no general divergence whatsoever. Furthermore, the sudden global shifts are easily traceable to the western part of the ENSO pendulum (the West-Pacific/East-Indian oceans) and to the North Atlantic (AMO). They are fully explained (extensively and thoroughly by Tisdale) by natural oceanic and atmospheric processes, all known and described in the scientific literature and easily observed and tracked in all kinds of relevant climatic data.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/NINO34vsHadCRUT3gl2_zps3d189621.png
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/EPacvsGlSSTa2_zpsc33ca917.png
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/EPacvsGlSSTa_zpsbc15e85d.png
There simply is nothing left for a CO2 warming signal. And still people are absolutely convinced that there has to be some GHG warming effect of significance somewhere. If natural processes explain all of the 0.6 C rise in global temperatures from 1970 to 2013 (43+ years) and that entire rise occurred in three (3) sudden shifts (1976-79 (major/phase climate shift), 1988 (mode climate shift) and 1998 (another mode climate shift)) and nowhere else whatsoever, during the period with the most rapid rise and allegedly the highest absolute content of atmospheric CO2 for many hundreds of thousands of years … THEN THERE IS NO CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO CO2. THE SENSITIVITY IS ZERO! There is no background trend. There is only the very specific and process-related shifts.
And OLR at ToA just follow temps over the last decades of global warming, as temps follow ENSO. No sign anywhere of an ‘enhanced GHE’ as the warming cause. Pure and simple.
This is what observational data from the real Earth system is telling us, showing us. And it’s simply ignored. All for the sake of ‘Oh, but CO2 has to do something, right?’
Snap out of it!
Kristian
Why did SST increase since 1880 while ENSO is flat?
Ferdi: “The seasonal changes are definitely linked to the NH mid to high latitude growth and wane of forests and crops. The 13C/12C seasonal ratio changes are opposite to the CO2 level changes, thus vegetation related, not ocean related. The Ferrel cells bring CO2 from the mid-latitudes to the high North stations, which makes that the change is mostly visible there, but measurements at 1000 m height over the Black Forest (Schauinsland, Germany) did show larger seasonal variations than Barrow, AK, USA.”
Thanks, that’s useful info. What I plotted used a filter to precisely remove the annual cycle from both CO2 and SST, so the what you say is not contradictory to what I said.
Do you know of a source for long term 13C/12C ratio data? I presume they have this at Mauna Loa but I’ve never seen a reference to it.
In reply to:
Mike Jonas says:
May 19, 2013 at 11:13 pm
Howdy.
William: I think we are in agreement. The $200 billion/year question is how much of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than by the increase in atmospheric CO2. I would assume the PDO phases are related to the solar magnetic cycle changes.
The data and analysis I have seen supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming and the past Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming and cooling was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 10:08 pm
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 9:32 pm
As I said, there is observational evidence that the Northern hemisphere, in particular northern high latitudes regions have started to cool.
So what? The climate warms and cools all the time.
William:
Yes, we agree in agreement that ‘the climate warms and cools’. It does not however warm and cool ‘all the time’, as you state.
The climate warms and cools when there is a specific type of solar magnetic cycle changes. (i.e. One needs to understand the mechanisms and cannot just simplistically and ignorantly compare the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun to validate or invalidate the mechanisms.)
The IPCC is assuming 100% of the 20th century warming was caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
As can be seen in the graph in logic point 1, in the last 11,000 years there have been nine cyclic warming and cooling periods on the Greenland Ice sheet. These warming and cooling cycles are called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The paper you quote notes that Be10 and C14 changes correlate with the nine warming and cooling.
The paper you quoted provides no data or logic to challenge the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes cause the D-O cycles. The paper you quote ignores the data and logic from other papers that rule out internal ice sheet variability as a cause of the D-O cycle in the glacial period. The rush of ice into the ocean after the period of warming comes from multiple ice sheets that are disconnected from each other. The rush of ice into the ocean starts and stops synchronously which is not possible due to internal ice sheet dynamics. The solar magnetic cycle changes affect all of the ice sheets. Also there is synchronous cooling and warming in the Southern Hemisphere. The solar magnetic cycle changes affect both hemispheres.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/easterbrook-et-al_ch2evidence-for-synchronous-global-climatic-events.pdf
The following are logical points, observational data, and analysis that supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes (50% to 75%) rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
1) There is in the paleo record, cycles of warming and cooling, that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, D-O cycles. The solar magnetic cycle activity in the 20th century was higher for a longer period in the 20th century than any other period in the last 11,000 years. The important point is how long the period of high activity. In fact there is evidence that the mechanism saturates.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. See the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles in the data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
2) The regions that warmed in the past D-O cycles are the same regions that warmed during the 20th century, Northern hemisphere primarily, high latitude Northern Hemisphere. i.e. The D-O cycle is very clearly evident in the Greenland Ice sheet data.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC
Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland. The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.
3) We know there has been no significant cooling for the last 16 years, yet CO2 has been increasing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
4) There was slight cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet during the 20th century warming. This phenomenon where the Antarctic ice cools when then Greenland Ice sheet warms and vice versa is called the polar see-saw. The polar see-saw occurs when there is a D-O cycle and is explained by this paper by Svensmark.
If it quacks, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck. The 20th century warming was the warming phase of D-O cycle. The D-O warming phase is each and every time followed by a cooling phase.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly. …. ….Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
5) The IPCC’s general circulation models predict the majority of the warming due to CO2 forcing should occur in the tropics as this is the region where the most amount of radiation is emitted to space and there is the largest amount of water to amplify the CO2 warming. The actual warming that occurred was in the high latitude Northern regions which match the warming pattern that occurred in the past during a D-O cycle. Furthermore, the IPCC models predict that there should be warming in tropical troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet due to increase water vapor. There is no warming tropical tropospheric warming observed.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
6) Lindzen and Choi, Idso have found the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather amplifies forcing changes.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
7) As there is no observed tropical tropospheric warming and planetary cloud cover increases and decreases to resist warming, the majority of 20th century warming was caused by something else besides the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, changes to the solar magnetic cycle.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
“We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. …then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11 year cycle… Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 +/-0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature 0.16C +/-C.”
8) Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down of the solar magnetic cycle.
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
9) Penn and Livingston have found that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is for some unknown reason decaying linearly. Furthermore they predict the sun will be spotless by 2017. Solar cycle 25 is predicted to be a Maunder like minimum.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
10) Based on logical points 1 through 9, the planet will now cool due to the solar down in the solar magnetic cycle. It is observed that when there is a major slow down of the solar magnetic cycle there is a 10 to 12 year delay before there is observed cooling in the high Northern regions. Why this is true is not know. It appears the delay is not due to thermal lag of the oceans.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. …. ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. … ….We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C.
A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
Greg Goodman says:
May 20, 2013 at 4:09 am
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
You can choose station, carbon cycle gases and then C13/C12 ratio. Not all have these ratio measurements, the main stations have.
Several are trended here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
And a combined trend:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
many thanks Ferdi, exactly what I was looking for. I now have daily CO2 as well. 😉
I agree with Kristian. Indeed, most commenters, ignore or forget the arguments put forward so convincingly by Bos Tisdale. It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.
There does seem to be a positive (Right hand) bias in most of those modelled distribution graphs. Why is this?
Just when I thought I was going to get all that extra transactional sex.
Rosco says:
May 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I am amazed.
Do not be amazed, they are deaf and blind to your message. It has been shown before, but they read in to it what they want, like Roy Spencer’s conclusion to DWIR experiment.
Kristian says:
May 20, 2013 at 3:44 am
I’m amazed at how people reading this blog, people that should be well familiar with the work of Bob Tisdale, one of its more active contributors, still manage to just blank out completely when reading about ‘climate sensitivity’.
You should also not be amazed, they have the belief that as CO2 is a greenhouse gas? there must be a sensitivity.
A “fudge factor” can always be adjusted to fit additional data. Try doing your energy balance on the Arctic or the Antarctic where days are a year long. I think you will find that the rates of the processes of freezing and sublimation of water are controlling the rate of OLR, not CO2 concentrations. Global averages do not reflect local rates.
Rosco says:
May 19, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Rosco take two matches and light them. Blue tips are fine. Separate they each are at say 600 F now take and hold the flames together and voila you have a larger flame at 600 F. Do it with torches anything and you cannot add temperature and that is what they are doing. A thing will only get as hot as the hottest thing providing the input heat.
lgl says, May 20, 2013 at 4:01 am:
“Why did SST increase since 1880 while ENSO is flat?”
ENSO is not flat, lgl. Whatever gave you that idea? NINO3.4 is (fairly) flat. NINO3.4 is not ENSO.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ENSOampAMOb_zps2f9f8129.png
And where is that CO2 warming signal on top of the ENSO(->AMO) signal 1970-2013, lgl? Where’s that relentless background trend. Hidden in three specific and sudden jolts in 1979, ’88 and ’98? Mechanism, please.
Read Tisdale at all, lgl?
Mike Jonas says:
May 19, 2013 at 2:14 pm
—
you beat me to it. This is just another piece of guesswork that happens to agree a little better with recent temperature trends than previous pieces of guesswork. As long as there isn’t a comprehensive and quantitatively accurate theory of natural climate variation, it remains impossible to extract the human contribution from analyzing trends. No amount of mathematical voodoo is going to change that.
Another curious aspect: If the work was mainly done by the first author, how come there are as many as 14 authors overall? How exactly did the other authors ensure to split the minor piece of the work to make sure everyone contributed enough to earn coauthorship? Frankly, I suspect that some people were made coauthors even though they did not significantly contribute, simply in order to make reviewers think twice about rejecting this paper.
The can’t. They won’t. And they didn’t. They did, however, spin it like a top. There will still be “Extreme Global Warming!!! Oh NOOEES!!” But it will happen further in the future. Keep sending money.
http://news.yahoo.com/extreme-global-warming-seen-further-away-previously-thought-090821067.html
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 4:11 am
I would assume the PDO phases are related to the solar magnetic cycle changes.
Since when are assumptions science?
The climate warms and cools when there is a specific type of solar magnetic cycle changes.
Again an assumption, no evidence.
The following are logical points, observational data, and analysis that supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes (50% to 75%) rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
This is not a binary question, solar or CO2. Any complex system has internal cycles, e.g. ocean circulation changes.
The solar magnetic cycle activity in the 20th century was higher for a longer period in the 20th century than any other period in the last 11,000 years.
No, this is simply not true as I have explained.
@- Chris Schoneveld
“I agree with Kristian. Indeed, most commenters, ignore or forget the arguments put forward so convincingly by Bos Tisdale. It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
97% of scientist are unpersuaded of Bob’s ENSO hypothesis.
Especially as there is no explanation why for several thousand years the ENSO fluctuations have had NO effect on climate trends, but just start to do so when humans start adding massive amounts of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere.
Chris Schoneveld says, May 20, 2013 at 5:02 am:
“It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
Well, it is solar, the Sun being the ultimate provider of heat after all. Its main influence simply manifests itself indirectly rather than directly, through and across the ocean cycles. But you’re right, either way it’s not CO2.
The BBC look like they are rowing back just a little on AGW doom prediction, saying “Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’ “. However the last line of the piece suggests this is a limited tactical retreat only.
Mike Jonas says:
“I won’t argue with the idea that Nic Lewis’ paper is important, but I wonder why … presumably it is politically important (pity it’s too late for AR5),”
The paper was accepted by the IPCC AR5 WG1 acceptance deadline of 15 March, and will be cited in AR5
Kristian
This gave me that idea, http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_nino3.4aa.png
There is no trend. Do you have a better proxy for ENSO going back to 1880?
Anyway global warming will also warm the Nino3.4 region.
And here is “that CO2 warming signal on top of the ENSO”, http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4-Nino34-detrended.png
It’s 0.26 C between 1880 and 1942 and 0.43 C between 1942 and 2004, and it’s CO2 ++, half of it could be solar.
If I correctly understand they assume all the warming since 1860 is due to CO2 and this is all they come out with.
It is still good for the skeptics, as they pointed since long that climate models have lost any contact to reality, but still wrong.
Considering the low quality of the temperature data, the lack of data for the reference period (1860-1879), the warming that was in the first half of the century, the millions of adjustments we saw happening in the temperature data I am very skeptical towards any significance of the results.
In the last decade we had zero increase for about 25% increase in human CO2 emissions, very low warming for the ARGO data after adjustment.
Where is the study that calculates sensitivity based on this?
“Estimates are made for ECS and TCR using ΔT, ΔF and ΔQ derived from data for the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970–2009, relative to that for 1860–79”
Actually, CO2 is pretty much transparent at visible wavelengths. It stops almost none of the sun’s energy from reaching the ground. Consider the first graph in the following link: link It shows strong absorption by CO2 between 10 and 20 um (microns). (For reference, blackbody radiation occurs at about 10 um for a temperature of 30 deg. C. so most radiation from the surface of the planet happens at longer wavelengths. link) The other thing to notice is that this particular absorption band overlaps with that of water. The question isn’t whether the energy will be absorbed, it is how high in the atmosphere it will be absorbed. 🙂
Anthony –
From the BBC. I just burst out laughing when I started reading this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
First they need to prove that the Easth’s temperature variations are driven, even in part or mostly or entirely, by CO2. After that they can start to show by how much.
“Chris Schoneveld says:
May 20, 2013 at 5:02 am
I agree with Kristian. Indeed, most commenters, ignore or forget the arguments put forward so convincingly by Bos Tisdale. It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
and its oceans all the way down.
Steven Mosher says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:23 am
“It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
and its oceans all the way down.
Amen!
izen says:
May 20, 2013 at 7:04 am
97% of scientist are unpersuaded of Bob’s ENSO hypothesis.
—————————————
You’ve asked them all then ? Or another clownish Izen conclusion with no basis ??
Just because you define something like climate sensitivity does not mean it really exists.
The implication of climate sensitivity is rising CO2 levels cause rising global temperatures.
But for the last 15 years at least CO2 levels have been rising and temperature not.
This is an existential problem for climate sensitivity. In other words trying to measure it is just a waste of time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
is my current favorite graph
it clearly shows temperature changes lead co2 changes hence co2 can not be causing temperatures to rise.
Temperature changes causing CO2 levels to change (or at least changing the rate of CO2 level change) is not a new idea
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/a-review-of-the-co2-correlation-and-a-discussion-of-warming-abatement/
I guess once idea’s get sticky they take a while to die
shame really
The Box-Whisker plots in the first chart are simply not credible, especially for the cyan 1970-1979 range. By eye-ball integration, about 75% of the cyan curve is below 2.0, 85% is below 3.0. Yet the high end of the box (83%) hangs out at 9.3. I suspect there is an error in the calculation of the box parameters from the truncation of the density curve at zero.
As for truncating at zero, I see little justification for that except “it doesn’t fit my mental model.”
If the data is telling you there is a 5% chance of less than zero, don’t truncate it, don’t hide it. Honor it and leave it for yourself and others to analyze and explain later.
Stephen Rasey says:
“The Box-Whisker plots in the first chart are simply not credible,”
The calculation of the box-whisker values is correct, although at an ECS value as high as 9.3 C the denominator is so low that sampling and other uncertainties make the exact value imprecise. As stated, the box-whisker values take account of probability area that falls outside the 0-10 C range of the PDF plot, but the PDF is normalised to unit probability over that range. This follows the treatment in Figure 9.20 of IPCC AR4 WG1. So you can’t directly infer the box-whisker values from integrating under the PDF curve for the 1970s or 1980s, where the probability lying outside the 0-10 C range is, as stated, significant.
ECS values below zero are inconsistent with the physics, not a mental model. The probability area outside the plot boundaries is not hidden, since it is reflected in the box and whisker plots. As for not truncating the plots, perhaps you have an infinite-width computer screen?
commieBob says:
May 20, 2013 at 7:58 am
//////////////////////////////////
I don’t dispute the measured absorption characteristics. It absorbs some, may be not a lot, but it is a factor on one side of the equation. That is all that I am saying.
You sate: “The other thing to notice is that this particular absorption band overlaps with that of water. The question isn’t whether the energy will be absorbed, it is how high in the atmosphere it will be absorbed.” and that is why I mentioned the inter-relation between CO2 with other gases in the atmosphere, and also why i mentioned altitude.
As for not truncating the plots, perhaps you have an infinite-width computer screen?
Did you clip the distribution for plotting purposes or truncate and renormalize?
Only the former has anything to do with the size of the computer screen.
As stated, the box-whisker values take account of probability area that falls outside the 0-10 C range of the PDF plot, but the PDF is normalised to unit probability over that range.
Well then, what’s the point of putting up a PDF at all?
If we are to believe the Box-whisker, at least 5 percent and likely over 10% of the distribution must be larger than 10 because 17% of the distribution is larger than 9.3. That would be a hefty part of the distribution to renormalize out of existance. Why show any PDF if over 15% of the tails are missing? The cyan PDF and box-whisker are just not credible as plotted. I do not have to believe them and I don’t.
inconsistent with the physics, not a mental model.
Physics is not a mental model of how the universe works?
In reply to, again to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 19, 2013 at 10:08 pm
William Astley says:
May 19, 2013 at 9:32 pm
As I said, there is observational evidence that the Northern hemisphere, in particular northern high latitudes regions have started to cool.
So what? The climate warms and cools all the time.
William:
Yes, we agree in agreement that ‘the climate warms and cools’. It does not however warm and cool ‘all the time’, as you state.
The questions which we (or at least I am trying to answer) trying to answer is:
1) Why did the ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger’ cyclic warming and cooling occur in the past? Michael Mann is focusing on removing the cyclic warming to help with the message.
2) Is the 20th century warming the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle?
3) As the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly and anomalously changed will this change result in planetary cooling?
Comment: Feel free to answer the above questions providing logic, observation data, and peer previewed papers to support your answer.
Have you looked at the Greenland Ice sheet temperature data for the last 11,000 years?
I am making a testable prediction. The high northern regions of the planet will cool due to the sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. (See the paper excerpt and link to below ‘Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures’ which predicts cooling in the high Northern latitudes based on analysis of past cooling that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes and the current known solar magnetic cycle change, also see the paper ‘Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum’ which notes there was synchronous cooling during the Maunder minimum, and see the paper below ‘ Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic’ that predicts solar cycle 25 will be a Maunder like minimum.)
You are making no prediction. You appear to have some other agenda. I am not sure what your point is or motivation is. You appear to be trying to convince people that the solar magnetic cycle is not variable and there is no sun-climate connection.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Note the warming that occurs on the Greenland Ice sheet and there is concurrent with Greenland ice sheet synchronous slight cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet, which is called by the paleo climate specialists the ‘polar see-saw’.
There are nine warming and cooling periods in the current interglacial. The warming and cooling phases are called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. Each and every warming and cooling period has an increase in solar magnetic cycle activity during the warming phase and a decrease during the cooling phase.
This is from the paper you so confidently quote alleging that it provides data and analysis to challenge the assertion that Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and the Heinrich events are not caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
The authors of the paper you quote appear to believe the use of a thesaurus can substitute for data, analysis, researching other papers, and logic. I am curious why these joke paper has published and why you are quoting it.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
Re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609
In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability.
Our new results suggest (William: The authors looked at one site. Other authors looked at multiple sites and found disconnected ice sheets during the Glacial phase warm and cool synchronously. i.e. The entire Northern hemisphere high latitude regions are warming and cooling synchronously. That is not possible with a chaotic ice sheet mechanism as the ice sheets are physically disconnected unless there is forcing function that is capable for affecting the entire Northern hemisphere) that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence (The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is roughly 500 years long. The more sever version of the D-O cycle is called a Heinrich event. The Heinrich events are roughly 1000 years in duration. These are not fleeting planetary temperature changes. Adjectives and the liberal use of a thesaurus does not substitute for a scientific argument. It is a fact that solar magnetic cycle changes occur at the same time as the D-O cycles and the Heinrich events.) that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.
William:
The above paper is a joke! If we were not in the middle of a ‘climate war’, I would assume the authors had intended it as joke.
Manipulation of the data and analysis, calling people names, blocking the publication of papers that disprove the extreme AGW theory, media specials, and endless hype about extreme weather does not change the mechanisms.
It appears the 20th century observed warming was the warming phase of Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycle. Based on the paloeclimatic record and the fact that there has been an anomalous change to the solar magnetic cycle which appears will lead to a Maunder like minimum, the same regions that warmed during the 20th century will now cool.
Are the authors of the above joke paper trying to convince us that the D-O cycle did not happen?
There is absolutely no evidence the D-O cycles is an artifact of arithmetic averaging.
What the heck does the phrase ‘an artifact of arithmetic averaging’ mean in the context of explaining what caused the D-O cycles? How in world did this joke paper get published? Why was it written?
Look at this graph which is Greenland Ice sheet temperature data for the last 11,000 years. There are clearly nine (9) D-O cycles evident in the data. There is historical documents that records the effects the D-O cycle warming phases had on civilization in the affected regions (Warm: beneficial increased food production, less disease, healthy happy people) and the cold phases had on the affected regions (Cold: starvation, reduced food production, increased disease, unhappy people).
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
William: When the solar magnetic cycle slows down there is 10 to 12 year delay before there is cooling in the high Arctic regions.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. …. ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. …. ….We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. … … A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. Corresponding changes in sunspot brightness and the strength of molecular absorption lines were also seen. This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
[snip – off topic rant – mod]
inconsistent with physics
Suppose I perform a low-temperature-physics experiment.
I collect my data. When compiling it, I find that 72 values out of 1000 are giving a temperature that is below absolute zero.
What should I do? (select all that apply)
A). temperatures below absolute zero are inconsistent with physics. So throw out these data and proceed with the 928 values that are “good”.
B). Work with the 1000 data points as collected.
C). Work with the 1000 data points as collected, and widen my error bars.
D). Burn the journal and start the experiment over.
E). Write up a paper on the set-up, methodology, and surprising results. Then start over.
F). Other….
Steven Mosher: Anthony. that is the big bottom line here. You had cook and company trashing Nic and it appears that 14 IPCC authors think differenly than the Cook and company
I think that is an important observation.
This is the best estimation of its kind to date.The derivation makes use of what I might call the “consensus assumptions” (sun and clouds are correctly accounted for, “equilibrium” is a relevant concept, TCS is a constant independent of starting temperature, etc) and comes to a conclusion that what we have been told is the “consensus result” is an exaggeration.
The results are heavily dependent on the priors chosen, and on the subsets of the data included in the analysis. For those who accept the “consensus assumptions”, I think the conclusion is that there are not enough data for a result to inspire any confidence, so the best result is the pdf with the widest spread. It is informative that the pdf with the narrowest spread has the most recent data and highest CO2 concentration. The calculations can be repeated annually as the data accumulate, and it will be interesting to see how the pdfs respond if the present “seemingly reduced rate of warming” continues as CO2 continues to accumulate.
Those of us who have criticized the “consensus assumptions” will most likely be unmoved by this derivation, but I think that it is becoming harder and harder for anyone to believe that there is anything like a “consensus” around the claims of James Hansen and Al Gore.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:25 am
Steven Mosher says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:23 am
“It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
and its oceans all the way down.
Amen!
………………
Not the end of the story, just end of one chapter to draw you to the next.
I’ve read parts of the draft of this intriguing story it is not ‘Sinking of the Titanic’, but ‘Sinking in the North Atlantic’, however location area is the same, the IPCC’s got it, but as usual can’t get it quite right.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CB.htm
Svalgaard and Mosher you are on the list for the preprint., however you may like it not a lot.
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:44 am
1) Why did the ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger’ cyclic warming and cooling occur in the past? Michael Mann is focusing on removing the cyclic warming to help with the message.
There is no such precise ‘cycle’. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf by very respected authors.
2) Is the 20th century warming the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle?
Therefore 2) is moot.
3) As the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly and anomalously changed will this change result in planetary cooling?
Actually, it is very likely that it will have the opposite effect: without dark spots to lower TSI, we may get even more irradiance during a Maunder-like minimum.
I am making a testable prediction. The high northern regions of the planet will cool due to the sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle.
This is not a prediction, but just an assertion.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Here is an update of that paper: http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf [note the authors].
Article in BBC news seems to say that not much has really changed. Look at quote by Otto
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
“We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing,” said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
“None. No comfort whatsoever,” he said.”
Steven Mosher: and its oceans all the way down.
Good. Very good. 😎
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:25 am
Steven Mosher says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:23 am
“It is not solar nor CO2, it’s the oceans, stupid.”
and its oceans all the way down.
Amen!
>>>>>>>>>
It is good to have you guys around.
lgl says, May 20, 2013 at 7:42 am:
“Do you have a better proxy for ENSO going back to 1880?”
I already gave you one:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ENSOampAMOb_zps2f9f8129.png
This is ENSO (bottom graphs). Once again, NINO3.4 is not ENSO. NINO3.4 represents the eastern half of the ENSO phenomenon. It has the strongest amplitudes. That is why its imprint on the global curve is so evident. But the upward shifts are generated in the western half of the ENSO region (the warm pool). Not the eastern. So NINO3.4 does not incorporate all the oceanic (and atmospheric) processes that is the ENSO phenomenon. You need to include both sectors.
A climate sensitivity lower than 2 K was already demonstrated here:
Scafetta N., 2008. Comment on ‘Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system’ by Schwartz. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, D15104.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD009586/abstract
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf
The real transient climate sensitivity (at the decadal-multidecadal scale) is very likely about 1.0-1.5 K, as demonstrated by geometrical constrains based on the 60-year natural oscillations. See here:
Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 124-137.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3533.pdf
where the model using the climate sensitivity correction plus the natural oscillations is demonstrated to well forecast climate change. See the update of the model to March/2013 at the bottom of my web-site here:
Astronomical Climate model forecast vs. IPCC
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1
A low climate sensitivity by at least half of what claimed by the IPCC is also demonstrated in section 3 of my latest publication:
Scafetta N., 2013. Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics, 1, 37–57.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.html
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.pdf
Kristian
“This is ENSO (bottom graphs)”
No it isn’t.
Mosher
Svalgaard
Matthew R Marler
Joseph Murphy
……..
I am encouraged by your affirmation of the ocean’s role in this climate change thing.
Pictorial preview of “Sinking in the North Atlantic” not to be confused with “Sinking of the Titanic” is available here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NaturalVariability.htm
lgl says, May 20, 2013 at 12:34 pm:
“Kristian
“This is ENSO (bottom graphs)”
No it isn’t.”
I’m afraid it is.
Here is HadCRUt4gl (global land+sea surface) and HadSST3gl (global sea surface) vs. Tropical Pacific/East Indian (24N-24S, 80E-80W) SSTa area weighted against and summed with North Atlantic (70N-0, 80W-0) SSTa, BTW:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ENSOAMOvsHadCRUT4ampHadSST3gl_zps866a1ff3.png
Not much of a mystery what drives global temperatures …
Vuk
Elsewhere the subject of co2 and it causing ocean warming came up.
I was at the Met office today looking for more data with which to extend CET and came across this book, with contributions from all the scientific great and the good of the era;
“Co2 warming in the ocean is confined mostly to the upper portion especially in the surface layer near 60N and 50S. Through increases in precipitation, weakened westerly wind stress and reduced overturning salinity, amounts decrease at high latitudes of each hemisphere. Salinity also increases in the subtropics. The resultant warming and refreshing of the high latitude ocean surface layer stabilizes the ocean and cause a weaker thermohaline circulation”
From ; Developments in atmospheric Science 19 “Greenhouse gas induced climate change 1991. This was as a result of a 1989 workshop in the US.
It suggests to me that at one time many of the scientific elite supported the idea that co2 caused ocean warming which, judging from the other conversation is now considered wrong. I wonder if their previous stance is reflected in AR1 or AR2? If so it demonstrates that -quite rightly- scientists can not only change their opinion but that they can be wrong.
tonyb
Bottom line:
This result is about in the middle between previous IPCC and leading sceptics’ estimates (good work 3% 😉 ).
There is further downward potential IMHO,
due to the implausible massive ocean heat content step function, while switching to ARGO,
no attribution to solar effects beyond TSI,
lower results in this study during negative PDO period, while the study covers mainly a positive PDO period,
slightly lower results of other recent observational data based studies.
jeremyshiers says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:29 am
Just because you define something like climate sensitivity does not mean it really exists.
The implication of climate sensitivity is rising CO2 levels cause rising global temperatures.
But for the last 15 years at least CO2 levels have been rising and temperature not.
This is an existential problem for climate sensitivity. In other words trying to measure it is just a waste of time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
is my current favorite graph
it clearly shows temperature changes lead co2 changes hence co2 can not be causing temperatures to rise.
Thanks Jeremy, you put it out clearly and the graph is really an eye opener!
climatereason says: May 20, 2013 at 1:15 pm
…………..
Hi Tony
It is a pleasure to hear from you again, and even greater to read some of your excellent narrative, all backed-up by historic ‘no nonsense’ records.
Ocean currents are the great distributor of the energy, with ability to change the climate to extent shown by the MWP, LIA and the modern warming.
TSI may change, but is it enough, cosmic rays may be variable but can they move clouds, planets revolve, but is their gravity pull up to it?
Dr.Svalgaard will say ‘NO’.
Ocean currents in the far North Atlantic are in the class of their own, here is a preview:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NaturalVariability.htm
Matt Ridley,
Your link http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3769210.ece
Yields this, no matter what I try:
Oh Dear Lord- It looks like a nuclear explosion right now in southern Oklahoma City, in the path of yet another giant monster tornado which just now ripped through the suburb of Moore and south Oklahoma City.
News helicopters now flying around the destroyed areas- oh Lord, they’ve just shown two schools severely damaged and one of them is just so totally destroyed- people just now reaching the scene for search and rescue…
The tornado was on the ground for an hour and they are comparing the size to the May 3, 1999 tornado, when the world’s highest wind speeds were recorded.
I don’t know how the weather man can stand to report what we are seeing- total destruction path maybe a mile wide… emergency vehicles can not enter the areas due to massive destruction- tears are streaming down my face, I’m sorry…
In reply again to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2013 at 11:15 am
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 10:44 am
1) Why did the ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger’ cyclic warming and cooling occur in the past? Michael Mann is focusing on removing the cyclic warming to help with the message.
There is no such precise ‘cycle’. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf by very respected authors.
William: Please, what is your point? A Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is cyclic warming and cooling in the same regions that warmed in the 20th century. The past D-O cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The joke paper you quote states the D-O cycle periodicity is variable.
The D-O cycle’s periodicity is variable as the solar magnetic cycle’s periodicity which is the cause of the D-O cycle is variable. No surprise there. It does not following however from the fact that solar magnetic cycles are variable that the solar magnetic variability is not the cause of the D-O cycles. The question is not if so magnetic cycle changes cause planetary temperature changes, but rather how and how much. The past D-O cycles were certainly not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact atmospheric CO2 gradually increased as the planet cold. There is a lack of correlation.
2) Is the 20th century warming the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle?
lsvalgaard says:
Therefore 2) is moot.
William:
You appear to have forgotten to include a logic statement, observational data, or analysis to support your assertion ‘therefore 2) is moot’. I accept the assertion the D-O cycle is variable.
The logical assertion that the D-O cycle is variable with a pseudo periodicity of 950, 1450, and 1950 years (that also matches known solar magnetic cycle periodicities which you have neglected to mention) however does not support the assertion that the D-O cycle did not happen or that the 20th century warming has not a D-O cycle.
You and the authors of the joke paper appear to have not looked at the Greenland Ice sheet temperature vs time, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
I ask again.
Is the joke paper trying to convince us that the nine (9) D-O cycles did not occur? The joke paper specifically notes that there are cosmogenic isotope changes – Be10 and C14 – that correlate with each and every D-O cycle. The cosmogenic isotopes changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for this interglacial period)
William: It is a fact that the 20th century warming occurred during a period of high solar magnetic cycle activity (the period of high solar magnetic cycle activity does not have to be the highest solar magnetic cycle activity to cause warming it only needs to be sufficient high to cause warming for the duration of the warming period).
It is also a fact that the regions of the planet that warmed in the 20th century, high latitude northern hemisphere are the same regions that warmed during the nine (9) past D-O cycles.
1. It is also a fact that the IPCC general circulation models predicted that the majority of the greenhouse gas warming would be in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space and where there is ample water to amplify the greenhouse gas warming. (Tropics did not significantly warm as predicted.)
2. There is almost no tropics warming observed and there is no tropical tropospheric warming at roughly 8 km above the surface of the planet observed. The tropical tropospheric warming is predicted to occur due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere which will amplify the greenhouse gas warming. That is not observed. (Tropical tropospheric warming did not occur.)
3. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis (2009 and 2011) showed that tropical region cloud cover increases or decrease to resists forcing changes (negative feedback) as opposed to the IPCC general circulation model positive feedback. Analysis finding 3 explains observation 2. (There is negative feedback in the tropics, rather than the IPCC general circulation model’s assumed positive feedback).
If there was not a ‘climate war’ going the above fundamental observations would have been acknowledgement and the science would be settled that the 20th century warming has a D-O cycle.
3) As the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly and anomalously changed will this change result in planetary cooling?
lsvalgaard says:
Actually, it is very likely that it will have the opposite effect: without dark spots to lower TSI, we may get even more irradiance during a Maunder-like minimum.
William:
Are you daft or trying to be humorous? TSI does not increase during a Maunder minimum. Are you asserting the planet did not cool during the Maunder minimum? Could you please provide a paper reference that TSI is reduce during a Maunder minimum? The following is a paper reference that notes TSI is reduced during a Maunder minimum.
Are you asserting cycle 25 will not be a Maunder like minimum?
UV and TSI increases when the solar magnetic cycle is more active and decrease when it less active. Changes to TSI and UV are one of the mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycle changes causes changes in climate.
The following is a list of the current known mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes module planetary climate:
1) Changes to the extent, composition, and orientation of the solar heliosphere
2) Changes to the cycle timing, magnitude, frequency, density, and composition of solar wind bursts and to the solar wind
3) Changes to the total solar irradiation (TSI)
4) Changes to the amount of UV in the solar radiation
Why did the planet cool during the Maunder minimum? Why did it warm and then cool during nine (9) past D-O cycles.
I am making a testable prediction. The high northern regions of the planet will cool due to the sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle.
This is not a prediction, but just an assertion.
William: You must have missed the paper I linked to above and provide an excerpt from that stated the high regions of the Northern hemisphere will now cool due to the solar cycle 24 change.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048529/abstract
Are the most recent estimates for Maunder Minimum solar irradiance in agreement with temperature reconstructions?
1] Estimates for the total solar irradiance (TSI) during the 17th-century Maunder Minimum published in the last few years have pointed towards a TSI difference of 0.2–0.7 W m−2 as compared to the 2008/2009 solar minimum. Two recent studies, however, give anomalies which differ from this emerging consensus. The first study indicates an even smaller TSI difference, placing the Maunder Minimum TSI on the same level as the 2008/2009 minimum. The second study on the other hand suggests a very large TSI difference of 5.8 W m−2. Here I use coupled climate simulations to assess the implications of these two estimates on Northern-hemisphere surface air temperatures over the past millennium. Using a solar forcing corresponding to the estimate of the first study, simulated Northern-hemisphere temperatures over the past millennium are consistent with reconstructed surface air temperatures. The large TSI differences between times of high and low solar activity as suggested by the second study, however, yield temperatures during all past grand solar minima that are too low, an excessive variance in Northern-hemisphere temperature on timescales of 50–100 years as compared to reconstructions, and temperatures during the first half of the 20th century which are too low and inconsistent with the instrumental temperature record. In summary this suggests a more moderate TSI difference of less than 1 W m−2 and possibly as low as 0–0.3 W m−2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles.
The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models.
We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. … ….A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.
Kristian
Those are all temperatures, results, not drivers. You have no basis for claiming ENSO increased during last century.
There is much more damage from this storm than the may 3rd tornado which destroyed 8400+ homes and 1000+ apartments, but they are reporting much more massive damage path and now- three tracks they are following for other tornadoes around town… total chaos… we had trwo R4/F5 tornadoes skirt through/around the metropolitan area yesterday, but this monster made a direct hit- very close to the track of the May 3rd storm, but worse- more in town- at least three schools destroyed.
There will be many deaths from this storm, even with advanced warnings- anyone in the storm track who tryed to shelter above ground, has very slim chance to have survived this monster.
“For ECS and TCR, whose PDFs are skewed, the median is arguably in general a better central estimate than the mode of the PDF”
OK, but if one were to place bets based on the PDF- isnt the best place the bets; the mode?
i.e isnt this the most likley estimate?
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm
William: Please, what is your point? A Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is cyclic warming and cooling in the same regions that warmed in the 20th century. The past D-O cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The joke paper you quote states the D-O cycle periodicity is variable.
Point is that it is not a ‘cycle’. In one of your earlier comments you quoted Rahmdorff using the precise period as an argument for its reality. Good that you now see that that is not the case.
The D-O cycle’s periodicity is variable as the solar magnetic cycle’s periodicity which is the cause of the D-O cycle is variable.
They both have longer-term millennial variations, the point is that they don’t match up. sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. So no causality there.
You appear to have forgotten to include a logic statement, observational data, or analysis to support your assertion
I have included several in past comments, but they just sail past you, so you have had ample opportunity to read them.
The cosmogenic isotopes changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
First, the solar and climate cycles don’t match up. Second, more than half of the cosmic proxy variations are caused by variation in climate.
It is a fact that the 20th century warming occurred during a period of high solar magnetic cycle activity (the period of high solar magnetic cycle activity does not have to be the highest solar magnetic cycle activity to cause warming it only needs to be sufficient high to cause warming for the duration of the warming period).
Good to see that you have given up on the ‘highest ever’ idea. So we are making some progress. Now activity in the last half of the 18th century was higher than in the 20th, where was the warming?
“Actually, it is very likely that it will have the opposite effect: without dark spots to lower TSI, we may get even more irradiance during a Maunder-like minimum.”
Are you daft or trying to be humorous?
Not at all. Ponder this: TSI has two parts: one that increases it because of magnetic fields and one that decreases it because of the dark sunspots. Without the second part [during a Maunder Minimum] TSI will therefore increase. Now, perhaps there were no magnetic field to cause the first part to increase. But, we know that the cosmic rays were modulated during Maunder and Spoerer Minima, even more than today, so the magnetic field and changes to the heliosphere were certainly there.
Are you asserting cycle 25 will not be a Maunder like minimum?
The paper [by Livingston, Penn, & Svalgaard] I referred you to suggests that a Maunder Minimum is consistent with the data. We are halfway through a very weak cycle 24, yet TSI [measured by SORCE/TIM since 2003] is the highest ever, the CME rate is as high as at the maximum of cycle 23. So, even though the number of visible spots is decreasing it seems that some of the other solar indices are not following the sunspot number down.
The following is a list of the current known mechanisms
These are not known to be effective, merely asserted by some people to be so.
high regions of the Northern hemisphere will now cool due to the solar cycle 24 change.
I predict the NH will cool too, but you are not just predicting cooling, but also making the assumption that it is due to solar cycle 24 change; that last bit is not justified.
lgl says, May 20, 2013 at 2:03 pm:
“Those are all temperatures, results, not drivers. You have no basis for claiming ENSO increased during last century.”
That’s how it works, lgl. What comes first? Global SST drives global land temperatures (looking past the high level of noise), just like global surface temperatures drive global tropospheric temperatures, which finally drive OLR at ToA. That’s how the solar heat travels through the Earth system.
So then all we need to find is what part of the global ocean drives global SSTs. Clearly it’s the ENSO region (tropical-subtropical Pacific), sectors of which are all directly oceanically linked. SSTs here swing several months before the rest of the world. That’s no mystery, lgl. It’s pretty well understood. A few months later they tug the Indian and Atlantic oceans along through atmospheric teleconnections. There are great ENSO signals in the tropical/subtropical Indian Ocean, especially the eastern part, and in the North Atlantic (–> AMO), being additionally fed with warm water across the equator from the South Atlantic.
Now you document how the atmospheric content of CO2 affects the ENSO phenomenon. And how the Sun doesn’t.
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
It seems that when it suits your agenda a paper can be supporting evidence, and if not it is a ‘joke’. You may note that some of the authors of the above paper are also authors of the http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf paper that you called a joke….
@ William Astley
you quoted “abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles
I clicked on the link but didn’t manage to find out when the next beginning or end of the quoted 1,470 year cycle was, with it’s 12% or 176 year margin. Thought it would be interesting to know.
All I can say is that my prayers are with you. Stay safe Luther.
Tornadoes will pick up as we move into cooling phase , keep you head down fella. Good luck.
Many families in Moore, OK will be dealing with broken hearts. Many children have been killed as elementary schools were in direct path of the tornado.
[off-topic -not interested – mod]
…send me an e-mail then.
If being a stupid piece of %&*# was a crime, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-Rhode Island) would never get outta jail.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Luther Wu says:
May 20, 2013 at 6:25 pm
——————————-
Hang in there Luther. I was relatively unscathed by the 1989 earthquake here, but severely scathed by the 1991 firestorm, so know what it’s like.
Re. the fake, lying diatribe from the regressive, I’ll leave you with two quotes, attributed to Edmund Burke, ca. 1770:
“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare.”
(The commenters there do not seem to be in error)
and:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
(Continue, like many here, to be a good man)
Very saddened to hear about the tornado. My heartfelt wishes go out to all those affected by it.
Just to state the obvious, the longer the present temperature stasis continues, the lower the figure for climate sensitivity will become (assuming that manmade CO2 emissions remain unabatted).
it will be interesting to revisit this topic say in 5 years time if temperature anomalies have not begin to rise. Even more interesting, should temperature anomalies begin to show a decline. Expect to see re-assessments with climate sensitivity at 1.5C and then even less.
In reply to:
J Martin says:
May 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm
@ William Astley
you quoted “abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles
I clicked on the link but didn’t manage to find out when the next beginning or end of the quoted 1,470 year cycle was, with it’s 12% or 176 year margin. Thought it would be interesting to know.
William:
The D-O cycles are controlled by the solar magnetic cycle changes. So the question is how does the solar magnetic cycle change and how do those changes affect the planet’s climate?
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are pseudo cyclical as they are driven by solar magnetic cycle which is pseudo cyclical. Pseudo cyclic events have non-linear sub mechanisms and hence cannot be analyzed in the frequency domain. It seems obvious that the solar magnetic cycle is pseudo cyclical which makes it difficult for the specialists to predict future solar magnetic cycle activity.
i.e. The periodicity of the changes to the solar magnetic cycle are determined by both external factors (planetary orbits) and by internal solar processes which are not understood and hence makes it appear the sun has a chaotic component.
The analysis of the sun-climate connection is further complicated as there are fundamental assumptions about the sun which are not correct and there are fundamental assumptions about how the sun affects the planet’s climate that have not been discovered. The missing pieces to the puzzle will likely become apparent as the solar cycle 24 progresses and as the planet cools.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Rahmstorf analyzed the periodicity of the D-O cycles in the time domain (interval counting) which is appropriate as the forcing mechanism is pseudo cyclical.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609
Therefore these records were referred to as either “quasi-periodic” (Bond et al., 1997) or “cyclic” (in a geologic sense, implying repetition, not periodicity) (Bond et al., 2001). The mean pacing of 1470 +/- 523 years was derived by interval counting (the elapsed time between cycle midpoints) and was the combined result of a composite record covering the last glaciation with V23-81 (1536 +/- 563 years) and the Holocene with V29-191 (1374 +/- 502 years) (Bond et al., 1997). Bond et al. (1999) later revised the V23-81 result to 1469 +/- 514 years and presented results for the last glacial interval of DSDP Site 609 (1476 +/- 585 years).
Variations in this stacked record coincided with well known climatic events, including the 8.2 ka Event (William, The 8200 BP event is a cooling event that is also evident in the tropics), Medieval Warm Climate Anomaly, and Little Ice Age, (Bond et al., 1997, 2001).
izen says: @ May 20, 2013 at 7:04 am
…97% of scientist are unpersuaded of Bob’s ENSO hypothesis.
Especially as there is no explanation why for several thousand years the ENSO fluctuations have had NO effect on climate trends, but just start to do so when humans start adding massive amounts of fossil CO2 to the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mankind wasn’t using fossil fuels when all those abrupt climate changes were occurring and on top of that Climastrologists tell us CO2 wasn’t above the ‘safe’ level of 350ppm. Until scientists figure out what caused Abrupt Climate Change, and they admit they do not know, all your climate models are not worth a pile of horse poop.
The Conversation, that vanguard journal of Australian academic objectivity, has published an article reassuring us we’re all doomed despite the Nature Geoscience paper …
https://theconversation.com/long-term-warming-short-term-variability-why-climate-change-is-still-an-issue-14476
This goes hand in hand with another insightful article by Lewandowsky, No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying …
https://theconversation.com/no-matter-how-strong-the-evidence-on-climate-change-deniers-will-keep-denying-14496
I’m not sure if this is a /sarc message or not.
Christoph Dollis – You had better hope that the pen is mightier than the sword because I have seen Xena totally demolish 250lb, muscle bound guys.
“Assumptions as to forcings”
As soon as I read those words I become disheartened. My laymans understanding is that all the nitrogen, oxygen and argon, gases that make up 99.9% of the atmosphere, are unable to cool by radiation. Only lowest levels of the atmosphere can cool by conduction. Therefore if it wasn’t for the ‘greenhouse gases’ radiating energy out to space the atmosphere would simply get hotter.
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
A note of caution on the 1500 year periodic palaeo-signal (Maslin et al 2001):
One cautionary note is that Wunsch has suggested a more radical explanation for the pervasive 1500-year cycle seen in both deep-sea and ice core, glacial and interglacial records. Wunsch suggests that the extremely narrow spectral lines (less than two bandwidths) that have been found at about 1500 years in many paleo-records may be due to aliasing.
The 1500-year peak appears precisely at the period predicted for a simple alias of the seasonal cycle sampled inadequately (under the Nyquist criterion) at integer multiples of the common year. When Wunsch removes this peak from the Greenland ice core data and deep-sea spectral records, the climate variability appears as expected to be a continuum process in the millennial band. This work suggests that finding a cyclicity of 1500 years in a dataset may not represent the true periodicity of the millennial-scale events. The Holocene Dansgaard-Oeschger events are quasi periodic, with different and possibly stochastic influences.
I find figure 6 in this paper a very helpful graphic of our current knowledge of climate periodicities over different timescales.
I am confused. Everyone seems to want to know where the heat went. The latest theory seems to be “deep in the oceans.” I believe the greenhouse effect of Co2 was established by lab. testing. Is this true?
Is it at all possible that lab. conditions do not in fact prove what happens in the real world with small quantities of Co2 in comparison with all other atmospheric elements. Is Co2 as greenhouse as they say? I would really like to know.
indigo says: May 21, 2013 at 4:55 am
There is lots ofCO2 info here: http://www.co2science.org/
Thank you, Nic, for this interesting post and link to the Otto et al paper. May I ask you about the following sentence in the paper: ‘For ΔT, we use the HadCRUT4 ensemble data set of surface temperatures averaged globally and by decade (Supplementary Fig S1).’? How do the authors distinguish between that part of ΔT which they attribute to change in atmospheric CO2 content and those parts of ΔT which may be due to other factors such as the spread of the built environment (UHI), rural land use changes, increases in waste heat emissions, station moves, and natural cycles?
indigo says:
May 21, 2013 at 4:55 am
I am confused. Everyone seems to want to know where the heat went. The latest theory seems to be “deep in the oceans.” I believe the greenhouse effect of Co2 was established by lab. testing. Is this true?
Is it at all possible that lab. conditions do not in fact prove what happens in the real world with small quantities of Co2 in comparison with all other atmospheric elements. Is Co2 as greenhouse as they say? I would really like to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not sure there is any missing heat but to your question. If the lab experiments are done well they will tell us the result of a given situation with given variables; namely the result of CO2 and light. These results should not be discarded as the lab is still the real world, and we can assume that CO2 has the same effect in the climate system. What is not known or less know are the other affects of CO2 on the climate since there are many more variables than in the lab. These other affects could strengthen, nullify, or reverse the direct effect of CO2. Furthermore, while the greenhouse effect of CO2 could be a major driver of temperature, it could also be indistinguishable from the noise. I lean towards the latter being more accurate.
Coldfish
” How do the authors distinguish between that part of ΔT which they attribute to change in atmospheric CO2 content and those parts of ΔT which may be due to other factors such as the spread of the built environment (UHI), rural land use changes, increases in waste heat emissions, station moves, and natural cycles?”
The influence of long term natural cycles should be diminished by the long gap between the reference period of 1860-79 and the best data decade, 2000-09 – which is about the length of two cycles of the quasi-periodic AMO (assuming one believes in the existence of a natural AMO cycle). A generous allowance for shorter term natural cycles/random internal variability is made within the temperature standard error term, as explained in the Supplementary Information for the paper.
As is standard practice in climate science, reliance is placed on the published temperature record and no adjustment is made to the HadCRUT4 global record for UHI, rural use land changes or increases in waste heat emissions. I think that doing so would be impracticable in any case until someone develops a record that makes specific, properly quantified corrections for these items. Temperature changes from station moves, etc., should have been adjusted for as part of the homogenization process when preparing the HadCRUT4 record. Note that, being a global record, land temperatures only have a 30% weight.
THe new paper is welcome with an ECS of 1.3 C. However, co-author Myles Allen published a piece in the Guardian claiming that skeptic Matt Ridley is only now joining the real debate on climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate THis is sly skulduggery. Prof Allen knows that the IPCC and its proponents have been telling us for 25 years that the most likely case is a rise of 3.0 C with a high case of 6.0 C. He also knows that the Met Office has pushed high estimates of warming. Skeptics like Matt Ridley have written that this is unlikely. Finally Myles Allen co-authors something that agrees with Ridley (or, in fact estimates lower sensitivity) and then somehow accuses Ridley of only now entering the debate. As many have pointed out, people who were proponents of alarmism are now back-pedalling, taking a position of lower ECS sensitivity, and at the same time attacking skeptics who have held this view for years.
So TCR MAY be around 0.25degC less than past estimates because more energy is going into the deep oceans than originally modelled. So it will take longer to reach ECS, but that is not reduced as much. Meanwhile the ocean heat content drives storms, floods and droughts along with sea level rise.
As ‘good news’ it seems rather limited, merely delaying the worst.
But there is something very ironic about the recent post in this thread concerning very rapid climate change in the past like the A1 melt at the end of the last ice age and the D-O events. Those are the paleoclimate events which lead scientific research in climate to conclude that ECS must be quite high. The climate sensitivity required to explain the rapid climate change seen in ice cores and the MWP and LIA are somewhat larger than the results reported here using just the very recent decades of change.
In reply to:
phlogiston says:
May 21, 2013 at 1:18 am
William Astley says:
May 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm
A note of caution on the 1500 year periodic palaeo-signal (Maslin et al 2001):
One cautionary note is that Wunsch has suggested a more radical explanation for the pervasive 1500-year cycle seen in both deep-sea and ice core, glacial and interglacial records. Wunsch suggests that the extremely narrow spectral lines (less than two bandwidths) that have been found at about 1500 years in many paleo-records may be due to aliasing.
William:
There is sufficient information known at this time to solve the problem of what causes the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling and what caused the 20th century warming. It is possible to explain what is observed, and to explain why the different specialists failed to solve the problem, to explain their analysis results, and to explain why they wrote what they wrote in their papers.
When scientific problems are not solved the specialists in question have not considered the correct alternative hypothesis and/or there are one or more fundamental assumptions that are incorrect. Curiously, there are often political type barriers that stop the discussion of the alternative hypothesis. The political barriers can be internal due to strong control by a group of specialists and/or can be external if there are commercial or political implications to the solution of the problem.
The Dansgaard-Oeschger is pseudo cycle, repetitive warming and cooling of high latitude regions in the Northern hemisphere which includes the Greenland Ice sheet. The same regions that warmed in the 20th century are the same regions that warmed in the past D-O cycle. If one measures the average interval between the cycles the duration between cycles is at roughly 950 years, 1350 years, and 1950 years. That is a fact not a theory. The D-O cycle is repetitive. It happens again and again. Something obviously is physically causing it.
Comment:
The regions that warmed in the 20th century, high latitude Northern hemisphere is not the regions that the IPCC general circulation models (GCM) predicted would warm due to the increase in the greenhouse gas CO2. The GCM predicted that the planetary warming due to an increase in any greenhouse gas should be strongest in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space and there is ample water to amplify the CO2 forcing for example. There was minor warming of the tropics during the 20th century warming. This makes physical sense as analysis by Lindzen and Choi found that tropical cloud cover increases or decreases to reflect more or less radiation off into space thereby resisting (negative feedback) rather than amplifying the CO2 forcing. Supporting Lindzen and Choi’s result is the finding that there is no warming observed tropospheric warming of the tropical region. The IPCC models have assumed that the increase in CO2 will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere (not an increase in cloud cover). That increase in water vapor in the tropics at around 8km above the surface of the planet amplifies the CO2 forcing.
It is possible to track 23 of the cycles. There are 9 cycles in the interglacial period and 14 cycles in the glacial period. That also is a fact not a theory.
A basic textbook on paleo climatic changes notes it is odd that the D-O cycles are observed in both the interglacial period and the glacial period, as the atmospheric conditions are very different between the Northern hemisphere in the glacial state as there are massive ice sheets covering the Northern Hemisphere and interglacial there are not. That also is a fact not a theory.
Basis paleo climate textbooks note the fact that there are 23 occurrence of the D-O cycle before the signal is lost as the resolution of the proxy is degraded further back in time, that points to an external forcing function, solar magnetic cycle changes.
There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every one of the nine (9) cycles in the interglacial cycles. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. That is a fact also not a theory. That fact obviously also points to the forcing function to be solar magnetic cycle changes. These are very strong logical pillars to support the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes are causing what is observed.
Each of the above facts supports the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes in some manner causing the D-O cyclic warming and cooling.
Most people have heard the expression that the dog wags the tail rather than the tail wags the dog. In the case of this problem sun is the dog and D-O repetitive warming and cooling
If solar magnetic cycle changes are the cause of what is observed, the timing between the occurrences of the D-O cycles is due to what is physically causing the solar magnetic cycle to change.
It is a fact that solar magnetic cycle changes. It is a fact that Northern hemisphere was cold during the Maunder minimum when the solar magnetic cycle was unanimously low. There is a physical reason why the Northern Hemisphere was physically cold during the Maunder minimum.
Curiously, it is known that the solar magnetic cycle is what is called pseudo cyclic. The physical reason for this is the orbits of the large planets is one component that regulates and modulates the solar magnetic cycle and there is a second internal solar component which it appears is non-linear and is certainly not understood. The internal solar component causes the sun to change in a manner if one does not understand the internal mechanisms to make it appear the solar magnetic cycle is changing chaotically, randomly which is not correct. If the solar specialist understood the internal mechanisms they likely could predict the solar magnetic cycle.
As the D-O cycle is pseudo cyclic which is not a surprise a solar magnetic cycle changes are driving/causing the D-O cycle. What is odd or surreal if one did not know there was a ‘climate war’ going on is the paper below that analyzes the D-O cycle in the frequency domain and finds it is pseudo cyclic and then concludes that what is observed is ‘likely due to arithmetic averaging’ which is hokum, a nonsensically statement, a disingenuous statement.
A disingenuous statement is a statement made which is known to be incorrect and made with the knowledge that it is incorrect with the objective of misleading or pushing a political agenda. Unfortunately due to the ‘climate wars’ if one wants access to funds or a tenured position at many universities it is necessary to make disingenuous statements and conclusions in published papers. The fibs and disingenuous statements are stopped by public discussion and debate of the facts.
In the case of this problem, the fibs and disingenuous statements will also cease as the planet is about to abruptly cool due to solar magnetic cycle 24 change which appears to be either the start of the cooling phase of a D-O cycle or the more sever cooling of a super D-O cycle which is called a Heinrich event.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
Rahmstorf analyzed the periodicity of the D-O cycles in the time domain (interval counting) which is appropriate as the forcing mechanism is pseudo cyclical.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609
Therefore these records were referred to as either “quasi-periodic” (Bond et al., 1997) or “cyclic” (in a geologic sense, implying repetition, not periodicity) (Bond et al., 2001). The mean pacing of 1470 +/- 523 years was derived by interval counting (the elapsed time between cycle midpoints) and was the combined result of a composite record covering the last glaciation with V23-81 (1536 +/- 563 years) and the Holocene with V29-191 (1374 +/- 502 years) (Bond et al., 1997). Bond et al. (1999) later revised the V23-81 result to 1469 +/- 514 years and presented results for the last glacial interval of DSDP Site 609 (1476 +/- 585 years).
Variations in this stacked record coincided with well known climatic events, including the 8.2 ka Event (William, The 8200 BP event is a cooling event that is also evident in the tropics),
Medieval Warm Climate Anomaly, and Little Ice Age, (Bond et al., 1997, 2001).
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8. … ….The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years. … ….Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.
William Astley says:
May 21, 2013 at 8:55 am
There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every one of the nine (9) cycles in the interglacial cycles. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
The problem here is that the D-O episodes do not coincide with solar magnetic cycles. And, BTW, likely more than half the cosmogenic isotope signal is determined by climate, not by the sun.
William Astley says:
May 21, 2013 at 8:55 am
There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every one of the nine (9) cycles in the interglacial cycles. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
The problem here is that the D-O episodes do not coincide with solar magnetic ‘cycles’. And, BTW, likely more than half the cosmogenic isotope signal is determined by climate, not by the sun.
William Astley says:
May 21, 2013 at 8:55 am
There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every one of the nine (9) cycles in the interglacial cycles. Cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
Here is the cosmic ray intensity the past 10,000 years http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Ray-Intensity-10k-years.png where are the D-O cycles?
Kristian
Again, you have to prove ENSO has increased after 1880 (or was unusually high) to claim ENSO is responsible for the century long trend.
lgl says, May 21, 2013 at 10:59 am:
“Again, you have to prove ENSO has increased after 1880 (or was unusually high) to claim ENSO is responsible for the century long trend.”
ENSO is ‘responsible for the century long trend’ in global temperatures. I already showed you:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ENSOAMOvsHadCRUT4ampHadSST3gl_zps866a1ff3.png
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ENSOampAMOb_zps2f9f8129.png
This is because the signal from the ENSO region is simply propagated oceanically and atmospherically to the global ocean, the global landmass and the global troposphere. The cycle is ultimately Pacific. It pulls global temperatures stepwise down whenever it’s in a negative phase and stepwise up whenever in a positive one.
So what we need to look for, then, is what’s ‘responsible for the century long trend’ in the ENSO region?
Frankly I would say it’s up to you, as an apparent proponent for CO2’s ability to affect the mighty natural processes that make up the ENSO phenomenon in the long term and hence incrementally also in the short term, to show us that it is in fact so. To me it’s pretty obviously the Sun. That’s the null hypothesis. The Sun is what fuels ENSO. The Sun is the approximated perpetuum mobile. There is no question the Sun can and does heat the ocean and also influence global/regional pressure systems and hence jet trajectories and winds. There is, to put it mildly, a big question as to whether CO2 is capable of doing the same. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. We’re still waiting for that one single piece of it. Always a lot of conjecture going around, but absolutely nothing to back it up with.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TempgldetrvsSSNkumul_zps489f73b0.png
Why shouldn’t the Pacific (and hence the global) cycles tilt upward since 1910? Do you think the decadal cumulative solar forcing was necessarily the same during the cycle 1880-1945 as during the cycle 1945-2007 (or thereabouts)?
It’s more up to you, lgl, to prove there’s any real-world room for hypothesized CO2 warming at all, than for me to justify what the data on ENSO and global temperatures already clearly shows.
Congratulations Nic!
An article in Nature Geoscience is quite a feat.
I guess you next have to take issue with other studies that are using similar methods but showing more sensitivity (TCR as well as ECS), full-blown climate models that often show higher sensitivity (TCR as well as ECS), and estimates based on paleoclimatic data showing higher sensitivity (ECS in any case, do not think TCR can be reliably derived from paleoclimatic data). People do and will take issue with your approach, you should do the same with other approaches, that’s how science progresses. You got a fight on your hand!
Good luck!
And Nic,
You could explain to the commenters in this thread that say that CO2 has nothing to do with it and that models are always crap why they are wrong.
Good luck again!
William Astley says:
May 21, 2013 at 8:55 am
A disingenuous statement is a statement made which is known to be incorrect and made with the knowledge that it is incorrect with the objective of misleading or pushing a political agenda. …
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
When overlaid by solar activity shows no correlation http://www.leif.org/research/GISP-and-Cosmic-Rays-NOT.png
Now, perhaps your statements are not disingenuous because you are just ignorant about the facts [which is no shame].
A final one Nic,
You could try to persuade Bob Tisdale to (try to) publish an article in a peer reviewed science journal detailing his views on how the world warms or does not. That would make it easier for readers to get an idea of the relative merits of your and his position. Or fight it out here! (I am more inclined to your viewpoint, whereas others in this thread prefer Tisdale.)
Good luck with that
Plain Richard says, May 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm:
“A final one Nic,
You could try to persuade Bob Tisdale to (try to) publish an article in a peer reviewed science journal detailing his views on how the world warms or does not. That would make it easier for readers to get an idea of the relative merits of your and his position. Or fight it out here! (I am more inclined to your viewpoint, whereas others in this thread prefer Tisdale.)
Good luck with that”
Or you could just let the data decide. All climate sensitivity studies simply take for granted that the warming is due to CO2. Tisdale (well, the real-world data actually) shows that it’s not. It’s very clearly ocean cycles (ENSO) and the Sun. And that’s it.
Re Nic Lewis (21 May, 7.08am): thanks very much, Nic, for taking the time and trouble to reply. You note that “As is standard practice in climate science, reliance is placed on the published temperature record and no adjustment is made to the HadCRUT4 global record for UHI, rural use land changes or increases in waste heat emissions.” As you point out, this limitation only applies to the 30% of global surface which is on land. However if, as seems likely, each of these human impacts has tended to increase measured surface temperatures by (as you suggest) an unknown amount, what reliance can we place on the onland surface temperature record when calculating a global value of ΔT that can be attributed to added atmospheric CO2? Might it not be safer to ignore the onland record altogether and rely entirely on marine data?
Here is a depiction of how the new climate sensivity in Otto 2013 and in Nic’s paper would play out to the year 2100 versus the previous global warming forecasts. This is the 2.0C per doubling Equilibrium climate sensitivity scenario (I’m still in the camp which is around 1.5C).
One would have to say it is a significant lowering.
http://s22.postimg.org/l5xkh5zch/Otto_2013_Sensitivity.png
Kristian
“It pulls global temperatures stepwise down whenever it’s in a negative phase”
The point is, it doesn’t
I have already shown you what an ENSO-only ‘should’ look like,
http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4-Nino34-detrended.png
but temps didn’t drop that much 40-70 and after 2000, because of the CO2 maybe.
Solar also played a part but it’s hard to imagine it’s all solar.
Its about half solar. See
Global warming made simple
http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/
@kristian
“Or you could just let the data decide.”
You’re funny! Data as such doesn’t decide anything. It’s in the interpretation of data and different theoretical hypotheses about the data where it may make a difference.
“All climate sensitivity studies simply take for granted that the warming is due to CO2.”
Not true.
“Tisdale (well, the real-world data actually) shows that it’s not.”
Has Tisdale shown that the radiative properties of CO2 were mistaken? Very funny!
“It’s very clearly ocean cycles (ENSO) and the Sun.”
Is this an interpretation of the data? A model maybe? Has it been formally written down? Where can I find its workings?
“And that’s it.”
Argument by assertion. That’s it
lgl says, May 22, 2013 at 7:28 am:
“Kristian
“It pulls global temperatures stepwise down whenever it’s in a negative phase”
The point is, it doesn’t”
It sure does:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TrinnKaplan_zps384be1b2.png
(NINO3.4 (pale blue) x0.1 vs. global SSTA (red), 1948-2003 (Kaplan))
Discussed here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/#comment-6445
“I have already shown you what an ENSO-only ‘should’ look like (…)”
Why do I bother? Are you ever going to listen? NINO3.4 IS NOT ENSO! NINO3.4 merely represents the eastern part of the ENSO process. Therefore it does not and cannot capture its entire signal. I’ve already shown you this. Tisdale sure has. I’ve also shown you the full ENSO signal. Its western sector (the warm pool region) constitutes an equally integral part of the phenomenon as a whole, being directly and intimately (and inversely) oceanically linked with the East Pacific. It of course needs to be included. And the data shows why.
If you keep mistaking NINO3.4 for ENSO, you will naturally never get or see the absolute hold of the ENSO phenomenon (through its sheer magnitude) on global climate. This has been Tisdale’s main point pretty much since day one. It is still being actively ignored. By the likes of you.
“(…) but temps didn’t drop that much 40-70 and after 2000, because of the CO2 maybe. Solar also played a part but it’s hard to imagine it’s all solar.”
What kind of argumentation is this, lgl? ‘Because of the CO2 maybe‘?! ‘It’s hard to imagine it’s all solar’?! It’s your job to show us the indisputable contribution of CO2 in all this. We know the Sun can and does heat the ocean. It’s an everyday experience. We sure do not know CO2 can do the same. If you claim it can, then show us how that works in the real world. And where we can see its distinct results. (During the last 40+ years global warming happened at three abrupt instances and not at any other times. Is that the ‘CO2 maybe’ signal, lgl?) Otherwise, why should your personally intuitive position on CO2’s role be at all taken seriously?
Kristian
Nino3.4 is often being user as a proxy for ENSO, like this: http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
SST for 40S-40N, 80E-80W never has and never will be used as a proxy for ENSO.
Your first link shows just what I said. Global SST didn’t drop relative to Nino3.4 1948-1976 but it increased a lot after 1976.
We know that CO2 does heat the ocean because it is a ghg. The surface receives ~200 W/m2 ‘raw’ energy from the sun, but emits ~500 W/m2. The difference is mainly supplied by ghgs, it’s being measured every day. The CO2 signal is the trend (or part of)
There is no contradiction between that and ‘step-warming’. Apparently that’s how nature works. Warming in steps and cooling slowly in between. What we are observing is cooling to slowly.
lgl says:
May 24, 2013 at 9:19 am
The surface receives ~200 W/m2 ‘raw’ energy from the sun, but emits ~500 W/m2. The difference is mainly supplied by ghgs, it’s being measured every day. The CO2 signal is the trend (or part of)
The surface receives about 1000 W/m2 at the tropics during the day from the sun. The ocean does not emit 500 W/m2, this is pure nonsense.
That would mean that the ocean has at least an average of 307°K overall the surface (34°C!) .
The energy comes from the Sun – here is the breakdown and how it gets distributed in net heat transfer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg
Greenhouse gases influence the net heat transfer of the small orange arrow on the right side marked ‘radiation absorbed by atmosphere’.
“Back-radiation” is no net heat transfer but part of the radiation transfer inside the atmosphere. The net heat transfer based on CO2 is very small, not even calculated.
The greenhouse theory assumes the apparition of a hot spot in the tropics that should warm the surface below. There is no hot spot.
lgl says, May 24, 2013 at 9:19 am:
Why are you playing obtuse, lgl? Why so eager to deny the obvious (by real-world data)? Go read Tisdale. Your confusion here clearly reveals that you have no idea what he is actually saying. And it sure reveals that you have absolutely no understanding of what ENSO is and does. You’re just parroting the consensus. And seem content with that. Good for you.
“Nino3.4 is often being user as a proxy for ENSO (…)”
Yes, it is a proxy for the state of ENSO. Whether the conditions are per definition ‘neutral’, ‘positive’ (El Niño) or ‘negative’ (La Niña). Nothing else. ‘NINO3.4 SSTA’ is just that, the SST anomalies for the equatorial NINO3.4 region (5N-5S, 170-120W).
The ENSO process, however, is not fully represented by NINO3.4. It couldn’t be. ENSO is a grand-scale coupled oceanic/atmospheric natural Pacific phenomenon that plays out across an area vastly larger than the NINO3.4 region. It has two inversely related pendulum sectors, East and West. That’s the ‘extended NINO3.4 sector’ (East) and the ‘extended Warm Pool sector’ (West). These two sectors are equal parts of ENSO, lgl: http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/VvsiSt_zps0342926b.jpg
Together they make up the ENSO signal.
In addition to these directly oceanically linked sectors of the global ocean, the ENSO region controls the general SST evolution of the Indian and (North) Atlantic Oceans through atmospheric teleconnections. The response to the ENSO signal by these ‘distal regions’ is lagged, but follows and consolidates it.
“SST for 40S-40N, 80E-80W never has and never will be used as a proxy for ENSO.”
Seeing how the ENSO process works and is propagated on a truly global level, global temperatures would actually constitute the best proxy for ENSO. Tropical/subtropical Pacific and East Indian SSTs come in a very good second.
“Your first link shows just what I said. Global SST didn’t drop relative to Nino3.4 1948-1976 but it increased a lot after 1976.”
It dropped twice from NINO3.4 during the epoch 1945-78: 1945/46 and 1964/65. Only it rose back in 1957/58 (and 1978/79). And hence it didn’t manage to fall down three steps, just one in total. Didn’t you read the discussion?
“We know that CO2 does heat the ocean (…)”
No, we do not. ‘We’ assert a lot. But ‘we’ do not document. But by all means, do show.
“(…) because it is a ghg.”
So, it heats because … it heats, is that it? CO2 absorbs specific IR wavelengths. This in no way provides occasion for you to claim ‘Ergo, it heats the ocean’.
“The surface receives ~200 W/m2 ‘raw’ energy from the sun (…)”
No, it receives on average ~165 W/m^2 worth of heat flux from the Sun.
“(…) but emits ~500 W/m2.”
Of course not. It sheds just as much heat as it receives: ~165 W/m^2, of which only 50-60 W/m^2 is through thermal radiation.
“The difference is mainly supplied by ghgs (…)”
No. There is no ‘difference’ to be ‘supplied’. There is balance at 165 IN, 165 OUT. And that’s that.
“(…) it’s being measured every day.”
Nope. The heat flux is what’s measured every day. The other (individual) fluxes are simply assumed, inferred, calculated from this.
“The CO2 signal is the trend (or part of)”
Again, there’s no use simply asserting this. You have not even attempted to justify such a claim. You need to show it. The longterm trend is clearly solar:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TempgldetrvsSSNkumul_zps489f73b0.png
“There is no contradiction between that and ‘step-warming’. Apparently that’s how nature works.”
Yes, nature apparently works by ‘step-warming’. And it’s caused by ENSO-processes, which Tisdale has shown ad nauseam and which the real-world data backs up completely. What the real-world data does not back up at all is the claim that CO2 would have any causal influence at any temporal or spatial level whatsoever on surface temperatures. This is still nothing short of conjecture.
Again I would like for you to provide the CO2 mechanism where it lies in hibernation (having absolutely zero effect on global temperatures) for about 9-12 years and then all of a sudden jumps into action, raising the mean level by 0.15-0.2 degrees in one go over a year or so (but still lagging temperatures). Before it returns back into hiding. And also how this CO2 pulse only occurs during very specific ENSO events, every single time … You perhaps do not know that this is all readily explained through natural ENSO processes, fully accounted for by the data? The upward shifts follow a particular ENSO sequence started in ~1970. It has cycled about three and a half times since then (following the solar cycle). The 1976-79 step corresponded to an abrupt Pacific climate regime shift (the great phasic one). So did the 1988/99 and the 1998/99 steps (modal shifts). Peculiar, don’t you think? Coincidence? Where does CO2 fit in?
“Warming in steps and cooling slowly in between. What we are observing is cooling to slowly.”
Once again, easily explained by decadal cumulative solar input and ocean cycles in combination. CO2 simply has no discernible part in this. There is no sign of it. Anywhere. This is what among others Tisdale has shown, solely referring to observational data. Until you can point to it in the real-world data, CO2’s surface warming effect remains conjecture. It is not science.
Sorry, formatting problems.
Here’s the ‘real’ post:
lgl says, May 24, 2013 at 9:19 am:
Why are you playing obtuse, lgl? Why so eager to deny the obvious (by real-world data)? Go read Tisdale. Your confusion here clearly reveals that you have no idea what he is actually saying. And it sure reveals that you have absolutely no understanding of what ENSO is and does. You’re just parroting the consensus. And seem content with that. Good for you.
“Nino3.4 is often being user as a proxy for ENSO (…)”
Yes, it is a proxy for the state of ENSO. Whether the conditions are per definition ‘neutral’, ‘positive’ (El Niño) or ‘negative’ (La Niña). Nothing else. ‘NINO3.4 SSTA’ is just that, the SST anomalies for the equatorial NINO3.4 region (5N-5S, 170-120W).
The ENSO process, however, is not fully represented by NINO3.4. It couldn’t be. ENSO is a grand-scale coupled oceanic/atmospheric natural Pacific phenomenon that plays out across an area vastly larger than the NINO3.4 region. It has two inversely related pendulum sectors, East and West. That’s the ‘extended NINO3.4 sector’ (East) and the ‘extended Warm Pool sector’ (West). These two sectors are equal parts of ENSO, lgl: http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/VvsiSt_zps0342926b.jpg
Together they make up the ENSO signal.
In addition to these directly oceanically linked sectors of the global ocean, the ENSO region controls the general SST evolution of the Indian and (North) Atlantic Oceans through atmospheric teleconnections. The response to the ENSO signal by these ‘distal regions’ is lagged, but follows and consolidates it.
“SST for 40S-40N, 80E-80W never has and never will be used as a proxy for ENSO.”
Seeing how the ENSO process works and is propagated on a truly global level, global temperatures would actually constitute the best proxy for ENSO. Tropical/subtropical Pacific and East Indian SSTs come in a very good second.
“Your first link shows just what I said. Global SST didn’t drop relative to Nino3.4 1948-1976 but it increased a lot after 1976.”
It dropped twice from NINO3.4 during the epoch 1945-78: 1945/46 and 1964/65. Only it rose back in 1957/58 (and 1978/79). And hence it didn’t manage to fall down three steps, just one in total. Didn’t you read the discussion?
“We know that CO2 does heat the ocean (…)”
No, we do not. ‘We’ assert a lot. But ‘we’ do not document. But by all means, do show.
“(…) because it is a ghg.”
So, it heats because … it heats, is that it? CO2 absorbs specific IR wavelengths. This in no way provides occasion for you to claim ‘Ergo, it heats the ocean’.
“The surface receives ~200 W/m2 ‘raw’ energy from the sun (…)”
No, it receives on average ~165 W/m^2 worth of heat flux from the Sun.
“(…) but emits ~500 W/m2.”
Of course not. It sheds just as much heat as it receives: ~165 W/m^2, of which only 50-60 W/m^2 is through thermal radiation.
“The difference is mainly supplied by ghgs (…)”
No. There is no ‘difference’ to be ‘supplied’. There is balance at 165 IN, 165 OUT. And that’s that.
“(…) it’s being measured every day.”
Nope. The heat flux is what’s measured every day. The other (individual) fluxes are simply assumed, inferred, calculated from this.
“The CO2 signal is the trend (or part of)”
Again, there’s no use simply asserting this. You have not even attempted to justify such a claim. You need to show it. The longterm trend is clearly solar:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/TempgldetrvsSSNkumul_zps489f73b0.png
“There is no contradiction between that and ‘step-warming’. Apparently that’s how nature works.”
Yes, nature apparently works by ‘step-warming’. And it’s caused by ENSO-processes, which Tisdale has shown ad nauseam and which the real-world data backs up completely. What the real-world data does not back up at all is the claim that CO2 would have any causal influence at any temporal or spatial level whatsoever on surface temperatures. This is still nothing short of conjecture.
Again I would like for you to provide the CO2 mechanism where it lies in hibernation (having absolutely zero effect on global temperatures) for about 9-12 years and then all of a sudden jumps into action, raising the mean level by 0.15-0.2 degrees in one go over a year or so (but still lagging temperatures). Before it returns back into hiding. And also how this CO2 pulse only occurs during very specific ENSO events, every single time … You perhaps do not know that this is all readily explained through natural ENSO processes, fully accounted for by the data? The upward shifts follow a particular ENSO sequence started in ~1970. It has cycled about three and a half times since then (following the solar cycle). The 1976-79 step corresponded to an abrupt Pacific climate regime shift (the great phasic one). So did the 1988/99 and the 1998/99 steps (modal shifts). Peculiar, don’t you think? Coincidence? Where does CO2 fit in?
“Warming in steps and cooling slowly in between. What we are observing is cooling to slowly.”
Once again, easily explained by decadal cumulative solar input and ocean cycles in combination. CO2 simply has no discernible part in this. There is no sign of it. Anywhere. This is what among others Tisdale has shown, solely referring to observational data. Until you can point to it in the real-world data, CO2’s surface warming effect remains conjecture. It is not science.
Kristian
“Before it returns back into hiding.”
It isn’t hiding but for periods of time the ‘ocean cycle’ or whatever is equally strong in negative direction so the net can be close to zero. This is so basic we can’t waste time on it. Nor do I want to waste time on the sky dragon nonsense, it’s just too stupid.
95% confidence? Green jelly beans cause acne.
lgl says, May 25, 2013 at 9:31 am:
“It isn’t hiding but for periods of time the ‘ocean cycle’ or whatever is equally strong in negative direction so the net can be close to zero. This is so basic we can’t waste time on it.”
Well, apparently we have to ‘waste time on it’. Because you seem to believe in the veracity of this AGW myth very strongly.
This is the whole point, lgl. There is no ‘net’ between the ocean cycle (ENSO) and CO2.
The global temps simply follow ‘the ocean cycle’ slavishly. It’s not like ENSO since for instance 1998/99 has worked in an equally negative direction from the positive CO2 direction, with the global temps ending up in the middle. No, global temps simply follow 100% the direction of NINO3.4, and 0% the direction of CO2:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/IPCC-trend_zps51d992a9.png
And they do so between each of the upward shifts established in and propagated from the warm pool sector of the ENSO region. Only during these abrupt shifts do global temps part permanently from the NINO3.4. There is no further divergence between the two during the plateaus before and after the steps. This constitutes the entire global warming since 1970:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/HadCRUT3vsNINO341970-2013b_zpseeb92025.png
So I ask you again: Where is CO2 hiding between those shifts? And how does it facilitate the shifts when they occur?
Kristian
But there is no reason why ENSO should cause more steps up than down and thereby causing the temps to increase forever.
And I am answering again, CO2 is not hiding, it’s forcing is there all the time and is manifested in the long term positive trend.
lgl says, May 27, 2013 at 7:36 am:
“But there is no reason why ENSO should cause more steps up than down and thereby causing the temps to increase forever.”
You’re still completely avoiding the issue, lgl, reiterated in my previous post (May 26, 2013 at 11:16 am). Instead you’re simply parroting ridiculous SkS talking point strawmen in a sad attempt to distract from it.
“And I am answering again, CO2 is not hiding, it’s forcing is there all the time and is manifested in the long term positive trend.”
It is hiding if it’s not showing up at all, lgl. Stopp asserting its effect as truth. Show it!You just claiming that it manifests itself in the longterm positive trend doesn’t make it so. Where specifically do you see this causal relationship CO2 –> gl temps in the Earth system?
Since 1970, global temperatures have simply followed NINO3.4 + three abrupt upward shifts (79, 88, 98). That’s it. And this during a time of actual global warming, when the atmospheric CO2 content increased faster and allegedly reached (and is still reaching) absolute levels much higher than during any period of the last, was it 800 000 years? And still we don’t see any sign of it, anywhere … Go figure!
How come the entire modern global warming is contained within 3 sudden upward shifts and is nowhere else to be found …? It’s not like temperatures keep on increasing incrementally beyond the natural drivers (pretty much the ocean cycle/ENSO in longterm (and shorter term) combination with the Sun, fuelling it), not even remotely following some subtle ‘background trend’. Such a trend does not exist. Since 1970 the mean level is flat – up – flat – up. Just like ENSO, a function of its processes. Those shifts are directly process-related, lgl. Initiated in the Pacific. This is easily observed in the real-world data.
Read Tisdale.
Kristian
CO2 is warming by reducing the cooling, which is what we are observing. The ocean doesn’t cool down again between the large Ninos.
Net over-all average ocean surface-temperature oscillations including ENSO, PDO, AMO and other named and unnamed oscillations, combined with a proxy that is the time-integral of sunspot numbers (appropriately reduced by the time-integral of radiation from the planet) in an equation calculates all average global temperatures since before 1900 with 90% accuracy.
http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Or the integral of AO-NPI, http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4NH-AO-NPIintegral.png
Igl,
That is an interesting example of statistical curve fitting and matching provided by Paul at http://www.woodfortrees.org/examples . But look closely at the graph. AO (Arctic Oscillation) and NPI (North Pacific Index) are atmospheric pressure related. HadCRUT4NH is temperature measurement for the Northern Hemisphere. The graph begins in 1920. This may be relevant to understanding how energy moves around the Northern Hemisphere (weather) but there is no apparent connection to average GLOBAL temperature.
The results of simple calculations that show the high sensitivity of average global temperature to tiny changes in low altitude clouds as described at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ .may provide some insight to average global temperature.
The flat temperature trend since before 2001, while the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues its relentless increase, is shown at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
Atmospheric CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 24.62 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; April, 2013, 395.75 ppmv).
No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 24.62 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001. This demonstrates that the IPCC and the ‘consensus’ (mob think) are wrong and the global temperature rise that has been called Global Warming was natural and has ended.