Spencer on finding a new climate sensitivity marker

AFAIAA, the models don’t include sea sub-surface temperature gradients (and anyway the satellites can’t measure ocean temp gradients), which is where I would look for short term indicators of long term climate trends.
If it’s in the satellite data as well as the models it has to be a real value.
The need to average multiple models stumped me a bit, but I suspect that is a Christie type red herring.
So I plump for changes in the albedo reflective spectrum (oceans? oceans and land?), perhaps relative to the size of the warming event. Which would point to an underlying biological mechanism.

One of the many salient quotes:
“It needs to be something we can measure, something we can test with real observations. Just because all of the models behave more-or-less like the real climate system does not mean the range of warming they produce encompasses the truth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Well, this past week I think I finally found one. I’m going to be a little evasive about exactly what that marker is because, in this case, the finding is too important to give away to another researcher who will beat me to publishing it (insert smiley here).
This should not be a concern of any person who is interested in science for the sake of science with the ultimate goal of finding truth. That is my initial reaction to this article. This is before I looked up Dr. Spencer.
Ehh.
Why does it even matter. How can a person who believes that the earth was created by an imaginary being be expected to have an objective view of the natural world and its processes.
NOTE TO READERS: This person has demonstrated all the classic symptoms of trolling, best to just ignore him. – A

danappaloupe
Do you have that same regard for Issac Newton, etc.?

Wow, this article went completly over my head. I might possibly have a tiny glimmer of what short term differences impacting long-term results of the models means –I think he’s saying the models are so primitive as to have monotonous increases built into them that are impervious to short-term changes. This would likely be why we hear all that “come back with a vengeance” crap –they literally mean it since they expect it all to average out to their models in the long run, so a period of less now requires a period of more later.
So that much, at least, I *think* I get.
But what that has to do with a marker that would explain the differences between the climate model program results. . . I’m utterly not getting the connection, or how such a thing could be possible, or if it was why it would mean anything other than Dr. Roy has identified the major difference in algorithm *between the models*. Why that might be interesting, I still can’t think of why it would have any real-world applicability in determing how the models *should* change to reflect a short-term change.
But he’s a smart man. I’m sure he has something interesting in mind here –but I’m just not getting it yet. Perhaps having to be coy about what it actually is causes it to be hard to communicate how it ties together. Or perhaps I’m just not that smart. 🙂

So if you have 18 climate models and they all fail to produce what is physically observed, at what point do you begin questioning whether the models are valid? Could they all share a fatal flaw? Like maybe carbon dioxide really doesn’t have much to do with earth’s temperature?
Crazy talk, I know.
I’m just sayin’.

Graeme Rodaughan (23:04:08) :
Good points that you make, but, in another world I inhabit we say “Don’t feed the Troll”

I am proposing a genuine viewpoint which is different from the majority of the people on this blog, I ask questions, seeking a discussion about the facts. I counter number with numbers and pose serious questions about how data is being interpreted. The number of personal attacks against me far exceeeds anything I have dealt out. The worst I have said was ‘your readers need to be educated about the difference between weather and climate’, which does bring into question to intellect of the readership, but is above all a statement of facts. Your readers use 1 year of weather data to draw conclusions bout trends in climate.
The publisher of this blog is not interested in sparking good debate. There is no debate on this blog as a consequence and it is has become a place of talking points and partisan politics, yet is touted as a science blog (and a best one at that!). You call me a troll in an attempt to discredit my opinion and the questions I pose. Look up how a troll is defined, it is not me.
REPLY: Tell you what, I’ll give your your own thread. Then you can demonstrate your viewpoint to everyone. Only rule is that you have to stay on that thread. Accept or decline – A

I did some thinking about the discussion about the area of sea ice. Although you never clarified which numbers you are using to make you claim of a 28.7% increase in area, you still say I am wrong.
It doesn’t matter anyway. The real important characteristic of ice as it applies to climate change is the volume of ice, expressed in thickness.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#really_declining
I am sorry I brought up religion in your Science Blog, it does not belong anywhere near the discussion of science if we are all indeed seeking truth.

Roy Spencer, first, thankyou so much for your work in general.
Question: I see from your and Lindzens findings that the have negative responce to (CO2-) heat.
In many debates I argument like the following (and nobody ever had any contra argument ive seen..):
“The major process of positive feedback is the reaction of water to heat:
CO2-heat => more water in atmosphere => Even more heat”
– which is of course not likely in the light of yours and Lindzens findings.
BUT. As most here knows, the basic fact is, that from 1940-today, the has not been measured more water in the atmosphere. Without more water in the armosphere, its actually “game over” for the idea of positive feedback, is it not??
I mean, its very useful to examine things as you do, but the idea of positive feedbacks has lost already before examining the effect of more water in the atmosphere?
(And then we remember that alsp CH4 has stopped rising years ago)
Water content in the atmoshere: in ther lowes levels we have very near the 1940-50 level, rest of the atmosphere far less water than in 1940. This should be game over for “positive feedbacks??
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/dokumentation-for-global-opvarmning-uden-for-byomraader-d12-e473-s60.php#post_6080
Anthony, the “danappaloupe” guy.. i was thinking, how about letting him make his own thread “What danappaloupe means about climate a-z” giving him free space. I think this would be joy-full for the rest of us to comment 🙂
But i understand if you think its waste of time, though.
K.R Frank Lansner
REPLY: I had done so earlier, see previous comments…he apparently hasn’t seen it yet. -A

1 Dr Spencer is looking for the long term climate sensitivity index
2 Realists / Sceptics will be very pleased to see his conclusion
I have no idea why AGWs always assume that sceptics are searching for the dis-proving of their religion.
Sceptics are trying to apply real science to the problem no matter what the outcome. Scepticism is science not religion.

Philip_B (21:26:54) :
“And I’d add, that if the value is found in the climate models, then that is the proper function of the climate models, to indicate where to look for climate relevant values in the real world, and not to make climate predictions.”
When I was deeply involved in modeling, many lifetimes ago, they were always used to *study* the behaviors of things.
We would take observations, and try to replicate what we observed in the model, usually with mixed success.
Where we found discrepancies, we would play with the models – by adding constants or additional variables – in an attempt to remove the discrepancy. This process invariably lead to insights about whatever it was we were modeling.
Because most natural phenomena are cyclic in nature, you are never sure what frequencies are present in the observed “waveform” of variations, so you play with Fourier transforms to find the fundamental frequencies associated with unknown influencing factors, etc.
So if we did attempt predictions, they always contained “secret ingredients” in the form of frequencies for factor-x, factor-y, etc.
These predictions were to test the model, to see what we might have missed in our understanding of how much we didn’t know.
Am I wrong in being worried that climate modelers might have a whole alphabet of “secret ingredients”, and yet they are still happily making predictions as if they were absolute fact, when at the end of the day, they don’t know swat?

Dr Spencer,
Thanks for the preview, looking forward to seeing it in print.

One thing I’ve noticed, trolls never see themselves as trolls… however, changing the subject or worse, attempting to “educate” regulars at any blog is usually the main sign of a troll.
Also, many of the warmists don’t seem to understand that people they dismiss as “skeptics” or “deniers” are actually mainly concerned with finding out the truth (aka Science) as opposed to dogmatically believing very non-credible “peer reviewed papers”. Yes, we prefer to think for ourselves instead of allowing people with questionable motives to be the gatekeepers of human knowledge.
There is absolutely NO scientific endeavor that cannot be understood by the “common man”, if it is explained properly. Any time you claim that nobody other than a group educated a certain way can possibly understand something, you have already lost your argument, and you are wrong.
I have yet to see a CAGW promoter who has more knowledge about the Science than the average “skeptic”, for the simple fact that the CAGW promoters are more willing to be led down the garden path without asking questions.

danappaloupe (23:50:21) :
I The publisher of this blog is not interested in sparking good debate. There is no debate on this blog as a consequence and it is has become a place of talking points and partisan politics, yet is touted as a science blog (and a best one at that!).
As someone who regularly disagrees with the publisher and many of the readers of this blog, I have to say your statement is total garbage. If you want talking points and partisan politics (includig heavy censorship of opinions) – try RealClimate or Tamino’s blog.
I’ve been banned from Tamino’s blog for suggesting that there might be an ocean influence in the late (and early) 20th century warming. He did actually allow me to post for a while until I provided strong evidence and he realised his own ideas and those of his fan club were probably wrong.
Realclimate rarely allows any post which it recognises as damaging to the ‘consensus’ view – unless they have a satisfactory response, that is. In general, though , posts are either not published at all or else published days later when the topic has gone ‘cold’. There was even the occasion, some years ago, when I posted a list of studies countering the H-S reconstruction, but – overnight – the whole thread disappeared due to a “technical hitch”. Clearly someone hadn’t been watchful enough and had allowed something they shouldn’t to be published. If I remember correctly, someone recovered the cached files. I think Steve Milloy might have been involved.
There is no comparison between the policies on this site or CA with those of the main pro-AGW sites and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Nevertheless, you’ll probably still be allowed to post here.

danappaloupe (00:20:54) :

I am not a fan of pointing out the “500 pound gorilla in the room” …
But we have one.
Not a single person has stepped up and addressed the issue that many people on this website believe, wrongly, that one year of weather data can be used to draw conclusions about climate, global warming, models etc. Even if we were talking about a climate model that we know is wrong, and designed it to be wrong, we can’t judge that model based on one year of data.

Here

While the climate models assume a constant relative humidity which leads to positive feedback when temps rise (and therefore should lead to negative feedback when temps fall which they never mention) they have never actually made the case for their conjecture much beyond the assertion that it is so.
The models aren’t gridded fine enough to really analyze it anyway so their fallback position is, as always, that any deviation from the mantra is merely weather noise and they are dealing with climate.
Note danappaloupe’s statement: “your readers need to be educated about the difference between weather and climate”. ::snort::
Gavin insists that though the climate models fail with short term forecasting (weather), their predictions, excuse me, projections about the long term (climate) are correct.
That’s why what spencer is doing is so darned important. If a rise in CO2 levels is really going to have a severe impact on future weather* then there must logically be some way to tease out the evidence even in the short term. We should be able to identify and quantify something that is occurring RIGHT NOW that will show us not only what may occur re temp, but how long it will take.
—–
*there is no such thing as weather now, climate later. That’s merely an obfuscatory construct giving the impression that natural variation will end. Its mirror is the flattening of the MWP to remove natural variation in the past.

Re: wattsupwiththat (23:45:27) :
Any source you pick, NSIDC or JAXA shows the same result: More ice in 2009 than 2008, more ice in 2008 than 2007. If you are able, interpret these two graphs.
—
There was certainly less ice in 2008 than in 2007.
Not in surface area, correct.
But in the single important parameter here: ice VOLUME (correctly pointed out by danappaloupe) which is the product of surface extent and average thickness.
In 2008 over half the multiyear sea-ice left over from 2007 dissappeared: http://www.knmi.nl/cms/mmbase/images/29518 .
Whether the volume this year is again smaller than in 2008 will have to be awaited.

Lets look at this from first principles. The chosen index of long term warming is surface temperature – at least that chosen by the IPCC, doubtless because of its direct relevance to human life and ecosystems. Changes in surface temperature over several decades is primarily a consequence of cloud cover and humidity, with an element of aerosols that deflect sunlight, coupled to the regular solar cycle variation of 0.1% insolation (and any potential electro-magnetic effects on cloud seeding or electrical effects on aerosols).
Thus, if we identify a short-term (2000-2008) relationship, we have to show how it can be continued over several decades – either increased or decreased. In the time period of data that Roy Spencer has at his disposal, there is a transition from one solar maximum to one solar minimum. I can’t see how he is going to derive an indication of the direction that this decade’s data might go in. The next solar cycle will likely be down on the previous (electromagnetically), and the transition is a long one – thus lengthening the period when solar insolation is slightly reduced (note that other work has shown that surface temperatures respond to the 11-year solar cycle and that the scale of response suggests an amplifier in addition to the change in short-wave radiation at source – the 0.1%).
The past surface temperature data for centennial scale changes show evidence of cycles and thus the chief candidates for long term change – cloud, aerosol and water vapour, ought to reflect those cycles – but we have limited data. The main long cycles are 400/800 years (LIA/MWP), 70 years (Arctic Oscillation, AMO) 30-40 years (PDO) – and the satellite era really only covers the last one’s positive phase.
So – whatever the short-term indicator is, we have to know how it relates to the drivers of these cycles.
Here is my cent’s worth (which I outline in my book, ‘Chill’) and for which I would dearly like some discussion: in the short term, the primary area of interest should be the pulse of SW radiation to the equatorial regions of the ocean surface where heat is first stored within the planetary system. Cloud cover in this area will modulate that heat store – less cloud, more heat stored. If we look at several decades of surface temperatures in the ENSO region, for example, and look less to the ‘trend’ but to the rising amplitude of the ENSO pulse (which may now be declining), then we see that the heat is not stored in that region. A glance at the spatial distribution of the global upper ocean heat stores shows that they are not homogenous but concentrated in the gyres of the northern Pacific and Atlantic basins.
We now know (thanks to Compo and Sardeshmukh) that 80% of land surface temperatures are driven by transfer of heat from the oceans. The main transfer is via westerly ‘winds’ in the northern hemisphere. These winds are driven by the jetstream – but they are not so much winds, as vortices or cyclones, that extract the heat, create cloud and dump the heat as rainfall or radiative cloud cover on land. The ‘unusual’ Arctic melt-down has been partly driven by excess radiative cloud over the polar region (14% from 1980-2000) and warm ocean water travelling further north than usual under the sea-ice.
When there is more cloud in higher latitudes (and the gyres are located between 30-60 degrees north) the effect is warming – insulation of the ocean heat stores, rather than cooling as in the tropics. So any change in percentage cover OR spatial distribution will affect those heat stores.
In my view, therefore, Roy must relate the short term indicator to these long term ocean dynamics to get a real-world understanding of the long term changes. I don’t think the climate models he refers to even attempt to model these ocean dynamics.
Clearly, some short term (decadal) variable has created the build-up of heat in the oceans – and I would suspect the amplitude of the ENSO cycle is the primary driver, with the warm water pulses it creates being redistributed northward (and southward too, but more readily dissipated in the southern ocean circumpolar current where there is a net heat loss and no continental constraints that create large gyres).
If we are now entering a longer term cooling, then we should look for a signal that shows a) depletion of the northern gyres’ warm water pool; b) changes in cloud, storm tracks and wind patterns in relation to those gyres (especially the track of the jetstream). Ultimately, i suspect that it is the latter, which the work of Drew Shindell at NASA (I keep mentioning this but nobody seems to know what happened to the line of research) showed was correlated with a variable of solar output (UV light), that determines the long term pattern of build-up and depletion of upper ocean heat stores.

Apologies if this is slightly off topic, and let me preface it by saying I have an enormous amount of respect for what Dr Roy has done and the integrity he has shown in doing it.
I don’t pretend to know enough to debate Dr Roy on climate, or even to fully understand what he is looking for here, but the thing that has struck me most about the climate issue is the close correlation between the PDO cycles and temperature since 1880. So far we have had 3 warm cycles and 2 cold cycles, and are just beginning the third cold cycle.
I believe I am right in saying that none of the models Dr Roy refers to take into account the effects of the PDO, so if his analysis doesn’t have some element of the PDO effect, it strikes me as a bit of a wild goose chase.
If this third cycle plays out like the rest, and all other things being equal (which of course, they won’t be), then temps will have risen by about 0.8 degC over 150 years, and CO2 will have risen by about 50%.. Is it not fair to say that only that 0.8 degC is up for grabs as far as figuring out what other forcings/feedbacks are at play?

RR Kampen: all of the ice that is in the Arctic today will be a year older and much thicker after this winter is over?

Maybe it’ll be in a variation of the trade winds, the boundary between the tropics and the northern ocean gyres and the distributive westerlies.
=======================================

I must have missed something along the way. Where might I find the Arctic ice measurements of “volume” I’m seeing so confidently referenced in some of these responses? We know “extent” from the satellite readings, but all I’ve seen on “thickness” has been a bit a core sampling here and there, a few U.S.Army buoy readings and the results of a radar skid recently flown over a swath of the ice.
In all cases of which I’m aware, the actual readings were reported as either “thicker than expected” or “thinner than expected”. The reason “expected” was the best the reporters could do was that there was no historical base of “thickness” against which to compare these readings.
The absence of an inventory of historic Arctic ice thickness renders any discussion of “volume” an exercise in speculation. Common sense would infer that cooling waters and cooling air should dictate “thickening” as well as “broadening”. However, even that inference can be thwarted by the truly determined with endless arguments about the behavior of “new ice versus old ice”, “clean ice versus dirty ice”, etc.
In the end, “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”

Hmmm. Water vapor feedback perhaps negative. I’ve long thought the water vapor feedback to CO2 forcing is variable, depending upon need. I base that thought on the long term stability of the system, its self-centeringness. But how, and why? Oh, my.
================

M. Kampen yet another RC TROLL. The Ice will not disappear all in one year unless we are struck by a major asteroid or the sun suddenly explodes. You simply have not grasped the volume of ice that makes up the Arctic. Remember that at the end of winter in the Arctic there will be around 15^106 sq:m of ice. In cubic terms I simply do not know and cannot calculate it because there are no known accurate figures for thickess but you could assume 2 m average. The energy required to melt that amount of ice would be as much as could be focused from the sun with a gigantic magnifying glass in space.

I took a quick look at the historical Atlantic HURDAT Storms–http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records. Much like Dr. Spencer’s graph a shift in 1938 takes place and around 1980. I wonder if one of the missing links in the climate puzzle is changes in the speed of the thermohaline circulation.

Re: kim (05:19:27) :
“I’ve also wondered about the 800 year lag in the ice cores.”
—
First temperature rises due to long term Milankovitch (and such) effects. Vegetation and sea start releasing CO2 with a lag. This CO2 immediately helps to rise the temperature. From about a third of the climbing trajectory to interglacial maximum this CO2 becomes the dominant driver for further warming. The lag has then disappeared and temp and CO2 appear to rise simultaneously then – but in fact temp lags CO2 by a small time.

The AGW true believers are hoping that by moving the goal posts, from ice extent to volume, they can distract people from the fact that
1 – ice volume was never an issue in earlier years
2- that measuring ice volume is very dubious
3- that ice volume is irrelevant to floating ice.
The AGW hysteria was always about ice pack extent, until ice pack extent began to grow. This is typical AGW community behavior, as we have seen regarding sea levels, temperatures, tropical cyclones, etc.
The Arctic ice pack acts to insulate the water and reflect sunlight.
But this is not about ice. It is about AGW true believer’s inability to deal with inconvenient facts.
They attack a man of proven integrity, like Dr. Spencer, by mixing his religious beliefs with his science, and ignorantly judging both.
No one who is a serious student of science is ever going to conclude that being a theist disqualifies someone from being a scientist.
Dr. Spencer ahs proven himself over many decades to be a capable ethical scientist, operating transparently and with integrity. As contrasted to, say, Briffa, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, et al.

Govidan et al, “Global climate models violate scaling of the observed atmospheric variability,” arXiv:cond-mat/0206040v1 [cond-mat:stat-mech] 4 Jun 2002.
These authors show that (as of 2002 anyway) AOGCMs do not exhibit the same statistics of fluctuations as the real atmosphere. The comparison data is atmospheric temperature, which the authors state shows correlation power law coefficient of about 0.7 for decadal time scales, and shows no evidence for any break from this behavior at longer time scales. It appears to be universal behavior.
In summary the climate models show excessive persistence for time periods up to about two years, and then the power-law characterizing persistence in these models goes much too flat indicating a lack of longer range correlation.
The authors suggest that the parameterization at sub-grid scale seems to be the source of the flaw, but it is interesting to me that the failure to replicate the power-law persists to the longest time-scales available to analyze in the model output. The observations suggest, I believe, that feedback processes are self-similar at long, and perhaps all time scales.

Well, I suspect I know what Spencer’s secret line of research is but he need not worry about me stealing it out from under his nose since 1. I wouldn’t begin to know how to analyze that and 2. I’m just an amatuer anyway.
But watch out Roy, I’m on to you!
The estimate given hear also lines up fairly well with Nicola Scafetta’s second time constant:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf
as well as the estimate from aerosol data by Chylek et al. :
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml

Roy
Look forward to your final paper.
If you have not already, may I recommend evaluating the changes in global optical depth Ta as measured by satellites vs climate models.
Ferenc Miskolczi predicts a very low sensitivity of global optical depth Ta with the climate showing small variations about a thermodynamically stable value of Ta = 1.87. See the popular presentation/explanation: The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi See figure 13:

“Using Miskolczi’s new theory we can calculate the influence an extra amount of greenhouse gas would have on the optical thickness. Starting with an optical depth of 1.86, and it follows that removal of all CO2 reduces the optical thickness to 1.73 for a perturbation of -7%. Conversely, a 100-fold increase in CO2 concentration increases the optical thickness to 2.29, a perturbation of +23%. . . . When we increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases its water content about 5% to regulate back to the optical depth of 1.86.”

Miskolczi predicts a DECLINE in optical depth with water vapor (which counters the CO2 increase). Conversely conventional climate models predict a high sensitivity of global optical depth with increase in greenhouse gases increasing optical depth, especially by water vapor.
I understood your earlier models to imply an optical depth closer to Miskolczi’s value. Recommend a joint experimental/theoretical effort with Miskolczi.

I have a question that indirectly links to this. We hear about the missing sink for about half the anthropogenic CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. Mainly you hear that it is likely absorbed in the ocean but the ocean would seem to be so big that any measurement of ocean CO2 would likely have a Margin of Error larger than the sink. Not to mention whether we could detect it and how quickly CO2 gets used up by the aquatic plants.
With this ambiguity in mind it seems we might have a measure of the other possible sink of terrestrial plants. If the sink were plants would it not show up in the magnitude of the seasonal fluctuation in Atmospheric CO2? Would we get a deeper breathing biosphere?
The CO2 could cause some desert areas to be turned more tropical as CO2 contributes to both plant growth and efficient water use and retention. So would additional CO2, create a more robust biosphere that would change landcover so as to effect the Diurnal cycle by not letting heat escape at night. Would the more active biosphere be an example of a feedback that changes overtime?

I we don´t really know the laws operating behind climate we can´t make any models whatsoever, and if we should know them we shouldn´t need any models.
Now if you like to play models seek wherever there are right forecasts, perhaps there are true laws behind which you can use for a succesful climate game.

So let me get this right,
Dr. Spencer is listening to that tiny tick-tick-tich sound of a well-used car motor and deciding if it’s just an out-of-adjustment lifter or a rod bearing announcing its imminent catastrophic death.
From his message – I’d put tax dollars on that – who knows what it might deliver about climate?
Mike

PS RR Kampen …. sorry !

RR Kampen (05:09:15) :
“It might and it might all disappear next year and more, just like 2008 saw more than half of the multiyear ice from previous year disappear.
About two thirds of melting happens from below. Right now, even.”
Repeat this often, then cite yourself even more and you’ll get published in Nature and Scientific American! Two well known eco-theist publications.

Re: hunter (06:12:45) :
“The AGW true believers are hoping that by moving the goal posts, from ice extent to volume, they can distract people from the fact that
1 – ice volume was never an issue in earlier years”
—
I might have been the first to pay attention to thickness of ice. Rest followed finally after the disaster of 2007.
Reason: in late summers 2005 and 2006 there suddenly appeared huge holes on the eastern (Siberian) side of the pack. Suddenly? Yes: a matter of days from pack to open areas the size of Britain.
The explanation is easy enough. Thickness of the ice determines its vulnarability to break-up and fast melt. When that sea-ice is reduced to half a metre it WILL break up and disappear very fast.
The same process could be witnessed on a great scale in 2007.
This is why ice volume is the only parameter that counts. Extent hides it. It means that coming spring the extent could be close to normal, while three months later all that ice might disappear in a matter of only two weeks; that is when this threshold thickness has been crossed and wholesale breakup occurs – like half the Arctic Sea showed in 2007.
Anyone living in a climate that sometimes puts ice on lakes can see the same phenomenon for himrself.
Extent is only interesting ref albedo and weather.
Measures of ice thickness have been increased bigtime autumn last year. But they have been done since at least 1921: by the Soviets, by landing planes on the ice (in places where there is sea today) and drilling.
Average thickness over more than half the Arctic Sea was 3-4 metres, today it is 1.20m. The disastrous reduction in extent followed, of course.

Kampen,
We can discuss the AGW tactic of moving goal posts later.

There needs to be an IQ test to post on here….

I agree with Leif that a “teaser” like this isn’t appropriate scientific behavior.
What catches my attention is the non-overlap between the observed range and the range in the models. IF the index/marker has some physical significance, then it should lead to a revision of the various models.

Slightly O/T but I think that SM’s latest thread on CA is possibly even more explosive than the initial exposure of the Yamal series. It seems that Gavin at RC has adoped “Tom P” as his new ‘guru’ on dendrochronology. It also seems that the mast Gavin is now pinning his “robustness” to – namely selection criteria via Tom P – is just as shaky as all those defunct hockey sticks RC put up recently, presumably as a smoke screen whilst they try and get their stories right….
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7278
Steve’s laconic description of this latest debacle is just GOLD!!!!!!! Perhaps he would do a guest post on WUWT and precis the current state of the “Emperor’s Clothes”?

A Comparison of EMD & Fourier Filtering for Long Term Global Temperatures.
The following is a comparison of the Fourier Convolution methods and the Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), used in signal analysis. The Fourier procedures were those recommended by Blackman & Tucky’s book “Measurement of Power Spectra”. These methods were later refined by Cooley & Tucky’s presentations on the Fast Fourier Transform, which they developed. This method was compared with the EMD analysis “On the Trend, De trending and Variability of Nonlinear and Non stationary Time Series” by Wu, Huang, Long and Peng. One of the advantages of the EMD method is the ability to evaluate stationary, non-stationary, linear and non-liners systems, while the Fourier methods are more for stationary processes. If there are wide variations between the EMD and Fourier results, it might indicates the data set is highly non-stationary or non-linear. If there are close comparisons, it might imply the data set would be “nearly stationary”, in which Fourier methods would be applicable.
The data set used was the 1856-2003 CRU set found at ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/gat.csv
Figure1 shows the CRU temperature , along with a “De-trend” line. This “De-trend” line intersects both end point of the data set, and used to avoid “leakage” problems with Fourier convolution. Figure-2 (blue line) shows the difference, or error between the De-trend line and raw data, noting that both end points are equal to zero.
Figure-1 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-1-VMn7J.gif
Figure-2 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-2-ZnKrn.gif
Figure-3 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-3-3ww7z.gif
The Fourier convolution is performed on this “error” from the “De-trend” line. In this case, the “error”, or difference, is inserted into a sample frame of 512 sample (powers of 2 reqts.). The rest of the frame is padded with zeros so no discontinuity is present at the sample end points, so “leakage” was not considered significant In order to check the computational accuracy, the input was “echoed” back. That is the input, was converted to the freq. domain, and back to the time domain, with no filtering, or “mask”. Figure 2 (red line) also shows the reconstruction of the original signal (blue line). In this case the reconstructed signal matched the input, indicating computational and convolution integrity.
Figure-3 is the power spectral density plot (actually 1/2 of it) that shows the energy contained in the various frequencies. Note that amplitudes get smaller at higher frequencies, while more energy is concentrated in the lower ones, stating about 0.14 cycles per year, or 8 year periods. This tapering off of energy at the higher frequency, also indicates “pre-whitening” is not needed.
Figure 4 shows the effect of a “mask” that removes frequencies above 0.025 cycles/year. Basically a low pass filter. Figure 5 shows the PSD filter or “masking” effect in the frequency domain.
Figure-4 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-4-uFtYj.gif
Figure-5 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-5-ZTrvV.gif
The resultant signal is a smoothed line, that shows the lower frequency content of the input, uncluttered by the higher frequencies.
He last step is to use the “de-trend” line and the filtered signal to re-construct the final filtered signal, as shown below in Figure 6.
Figure-6 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/cru-fig-6-NMyC0.gif
Here the Fourier filtered signal (red line) is compared to the multidecadal EMD results (thick gray line). Note that there is very good comparison between the two plots, especially at the end points. Also the plot title should read “Fourier Reconstruction of CRU Data”.
One of the stated advantages of the EMD method, is that it works on stationary and non-stationary, linear and non-linear data sets. Based on the similarity of results, one could come to the conclusion that the CRU data set is, to use Blackman’s and Tukey’s words “nearly stationary”, in their book “Measurement of the Power Spectra”
Also shown is a example of using the more current Hadcet3 data set, shown in figure 7, along with the same 0,025 cycles/year Fourier filter.
Figure-7 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/hadcet-fig-7-BGOn6.gif
In this case, there is more of a flattening at the end of the curve. Both data sets seem to show the ~ 60 year curve. From these two data sets, it would appear that we are in the beginning of a downward global temperature cycle.
300 YEAR DATA SETS
Two other data sets are also included for analysis. The first is a composite from the East English data (1659-2008). The second, Ave14, is an average of thirteen of some the longest western European temperature records plus the East English data set. These records were from the Rimfrost site: http://www.rimfrost.no/
A more detail description of this latter average is in the WUWT thread Forecasting the Earth’s Temperature 9/9/2009. Figures 8 and 9 show the Ave14 composite average analysis. Figure 9 also shows a 40 year moving average and 4 pole Chebushev filter (fc=0.025 cycles/year). Shifting the Chebushev filter back 180 deg. of 20 years, results in the curve almost on top of the Fourier line, except at the final end point. One method to partially correct for the phase shift is to run the analysis forward in time with a 2 pole filter, and then reverse it, in time, with the same filter. This is the “filtfilt” option in MATLAB. This method works well if the informative part is in the middle. Unfortunately, the point of interest (say the last 10-20 years) is at end point, where this method breaks down. This is shown in Figure 10.
Figure-8 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-hadcet-raw-0Fio2.gif
Figure-9 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-raw-smoothed-huBw1.gif
Figure-10 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-smoothed-rev_cheb-j0m9Y.gif
The Figure 11 is the East English data alone, shown below.
Figure-11 http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_28-bGGxs.gif
In this case a more defined downward trend is seen in the recent years.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
Fourier Convolution Filtering compared well with the EDM analysis.
Presence of a long term ~60 year cycle in the temperature
That there were some fairly warm temperatures in the late 1700’s in Europe
That there appears the beginning of a cooling trend in global temperatures
From the above analysis, it would appear, at least to this author, the Fourier does a very good job in matching the CRU EMD analysis. Hence it would also appear, unless some drastic changes in similar temperature data sets took place, the Fourier analysis would work just as well and produce reasonably accurate results. This would be true, especially at the most recent end point.
The second point is the persistent ~60 year period oscillation that continues to show up even in the earliest records. So something was going on, prior to the “greenhouse gasses” showed up.
The third point is temperatures, at least in western Europe went through periods where their temperature was very close to the present. If one were to look at a trend analysis, the long term slopes are also much flatter then looking at the 1850-2008 trend slopes.
The last point is the question of the flatting, or downward beginning of the ~60 Year plot. Assuming this plot will continue, and CO2 levels going up, it is hard to justify the correlation between the two.
Anyway, is appears that the earth does have a very slow long term increase, and the more recent changes are part of some “to be determined” natural cycle.
That’s one person’s train of thought.

“”” danappaloupe (23:56:14) :
I did some thinking about the discussion about the area of sea ice. Although you never clarified which numbers you are using to make you claim of a 28.7% increase in area, you still say I am wrong.
It doesn’t matter anyway. The real important characteristic of ice as it applies to climate change is the volume of ice, expressed in thickness. “””
That last statement of yours, danappaloupe , is that a statement of your opinion, or do you have observational data to support that statement.
I’m not sure everyone would agree with the statement; opinion or not.
I for one would never express the volume of anything as a thickness; the don’t even have the same dimensions; one is L^3, and the other is L^1 so they can’t possibly be the same.
But to the more important point of the ice effect on climate, it is claimed that the open water produces warming because the ocean absorbs almost as a black body; while the sea ice reflects sunlight and increases the albedo thus producing cooling.
Both of those phenomena are purely optical surface phenomena, and have very little to do with either thickness of the ice or the open water.
So show us some climate data that proves that it is NOT the ice coverage area that is the major effect of Arctic sea ice, and not the volume, which does not affect either the albedo, or the ocean absorption of sunlight; but is merely an indicator of how long some particular arctic condition has persisted. Given that we have seen massive short term changes from the ice advances of the 1979 era to the retreats of the 2007 minimum, and now a significant return towards normalcy; I don’t think that ice volume is a good indicator of anything but natural variability.
But that is just my opinion; I await your data supporting your claim.

“”” J. Bob (08:57:54) :
A Comparison of EMD & Fourier Filtering for Long Term Global Temperatures.
The following is a comparison of the Fourier Convolution methods and the Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), used in signal analysis. The Fourier procedures were those recommended by Blackman & Tucky’s book “Measurement of Power Spectra”. These methods were later refined by Cooley & Tucky’s presentations on the Fast Fourier Transform, which they developed. “””
Not to be picky J.Bob, since typos are built into everybody’s keyboard; BUT
You are presumably referring to the Cooley-Tukey Fast Fourier Transform.
I had a mental blockage, until I figured out what you were referring to. I imagine that Google would direct you to many thousands of references to the Cooley-Tukey FFT. It is really more of a computing efficiency algorithm , than it is any new methodology; since Fourier Transform methods were well known long before CT-FFT. I use it daily in Optical Modulation Transfer Function calculations; but generally rely on Huygens rigorous integration methods for MTF determination.

RR Kampen
Since you claim to have been paying attention to ice thickness for so long, why don’t you post some numbers relating to ice volume ??
a – b = c
You claim to know something about “c”. Can you please post what “a” and “b” are in cubic meters, so we can check your math !!!

Since 1979, the “polar orbit” satellites have given us the capability (somewhat) for mapping the polar ice areas, although a fixed orbit crossing both poles isn’t too practical, so their are some blind spots in the coverage.
But when somebody starts trumpeting ICE THICKNESS well I smell a rat. There’s that teee core drilling problem again.
All the under sea ice filming i have ever seen shows wild bottom surface topology of the floating arctic ice, which is clearly realted to the top suface variability and the thickness. So immdeiately we have a problem of SAMPLING INTEGRITY.
A hand full of holes bored by some crazy north pole would be treckers do not make a good map of arctic ice volume. Now there have been some airborne scans that have yielded more data, but even those don’t come close to adeqate sampling of the arctic ocean total ice volume.
So I’ll take a pinch of salt with those ice volume numbers and trends, if you don’t mind; and as I already said; that is more a measure of how long some particular natural variability state has persisted.
And here at WUWT we are well in tune with climate/weather differences; which is why we don’t see evidence that climate is killing polar bears, although we’ve seen some weather do that; and the historic record is that polar bears have survived climate calamities much worse, than the 1979-2009 sea ice area changes; which don’t seem that remarkable at all.

Like everyone RR Kampen stops his hypothesis of the ice-age cycling just before the onset of cooling because the strong feedback theory requires a massive CO2 sink to appear out of nowhere. Just once i’d like someone to make a stab at describing the start of an ice age when this supposedly super-powerful heating agents are at their maximum extent. To AGWers half a theory is better than none it seems. [ok there is one lonely seismic event theory which I confess I dismiss].

I wonder what he is looking at? If the short term feedback is negative I don’t see a mechanism by which long term feedback can produce a net effect larger than the radiation effect was to begin with; so how can we get a greater than 1C Rise?
Am I wrong? If the feedback effect is negative don’t we get limited by thermodynamics to a maximum rise for a doubling of CO2 of about 1 C?

Fred Lightfoot … was that Russian trucks in Canada (magnetic north pole)?

Doug in Seattle (09:57:15) :
“Now that is really strange! The Russians giving objective news while the west produces propaganda.
The world has turned upside-down.”
True, indeed!
The general opinion of the Russians is that climate change is natural and now entering a general cooling phase due to oceanic currents/solar influences.
I’m not sure what the Western experts’ opinions on the Russian scientists’ research is, but I’m sure it would be interesting if Khabibullo Abdusamatov would discuss his views on the matter here on WUWT.

What makes a climate trend?
The answer seems to be

“As many years as it takes to show our claims are correct. Years that don’t support our claims don’t count.”

Is 30 years a trend? It is when we try to claim AGW? How about 30 years of warming, and then 10 years of not warming? Does it have to not warm or cool for 30 years to balance that out?
The answer is never in the trend. The answer is in what is actually causing the observed climate. A good question is why isn’t the 10-year trend following the climate models? Another good question is how reliable is the data used to claim the 30-year warming trend?
[Sorry, I forgot the close my blockquote. I preview before posting would be helpful. Still, sorry about the oversight.]
[Reply: WordPress doesn’t provide a preview capability. ~dbs, mod.]

Remembering Dr. Spencer’s past work and current position, I would hazard a guess that the index is a ratio of the rate of change of the anomoly of radiation to the rate of change of the temperature anomoly.
That is, the index is a measure of how quickly more radiation results from a sudden change in temperature.
Dr. Spencer gave a hint in that he mentions that climate models are sluggish in reacting to temperature changes, and given the nature of his work, I would assume that he referring to a reaction in the amount of SW & LW rejected (observed by AQUA).
Apparently, when a temperature anomaly starts to build, nature changes the amount of SW & LW radiation from Earth rather quickly, whereas climate models are slower to react. Perhaps the slower a model is to react to such changes, the more warming it will predict in the long term.
My guess

In the study noted below, the authors confirmed that the Arctic
warmed during the 1970–2008 period by a factor of two to
three faster than the global mean in agreement with model
predictions but the reasons was not be entirely anthropogenic
Here is what they said:
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential
for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice
sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend
reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming
periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–
1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the
Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic
amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends)
is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time
scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded
at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008
warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly
correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation
(AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline
circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on
a multi-decadal time scale.
In my judgement our research would be better focused on cofirming the impact of known natural variables affecting our climate [like AMO,NAO , ENSO/PDO, ETC] than on the impact of the nebulous carbon dioxide . We keep jumping from one lily pad[someone’s unproven and undeveloped idea ] to another lily pad instead of seriously blogging what we already know to be valid areas of study based firm data. We are scattering our focus too much
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

Why 30 years?
Earths climate has large natural oscillations that are well known to last more than 10 years. PDO, IPO, I’m not sure what else (I’m a novice.)

Peter Taylor (04:20:34) :
Nice post. It made me wonder if you ever get together with fellow Brit and WUWT poster Stephen Wilde to discuss this over a pint.
If so, I’d like to listen in next time I’m across the pond. I’m buying. Cheers.

You would think Real Climate would have something new to say.
Do they think by keeping quiet it will make it go away?

Off topic…
Here the definitive article on how insolation correlates to treering growth:
http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html
A graph from raw data in the article and a short comment in the section Conclusions about how the mechanism of photorespiration works in C3 plants, that is, in Siberian Larch trees, bristlecone pines, Canadian pines, etc.,
were added.

William,
“CO2 increases in the past did not trigger tipping points because the increase in CO2 took place very gradually over hundreds of years.”
So? This has always been the rallying cry of alarmists, but the models impute a postive feedback to the CO2 forcing based on the absolute level, not on how quickly or slowly it gets there. It is based around forcing F = 5.35 * Ln (ratio of CO2 change). If you go back to the mesozoic era, CO2 levels were around 2000 ppm yet some would have us believe that levels of a mere 450 ppm will trigger tipping points with catastrophic consequences.
You have to show why the laws of physics that drive radiative forcing act differently for CO2 levels that take a thousand years to reach 450 ppm compared to taking a mere century.

Re: jorgekafkazar (11:52:46) :
“I feel like I’m participating on a moot debate about how many angels can dance the kazatsky on a PhD’s pate.”
Now there’s a sane voice amidst a cacophony of tail-chasing dogs!

RR Kampen (05:50:56) :
First temperature rises due to long term Milankovitch (and such) effects. Vegetation and sea start releasing CO2 with a lag.
I haven’t the time to read all the comments, so if someone addressed this, forgive me. But I going to need a citation for vegetation releasing CO2 with rising temperatures if I’m going to consider it, please. Someone else can address the sea part. Being a landlubber, I don’t like oceans.

Looks like september was the hottest on record, according to UAH AMSU Daily Temps: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Michael (23:33:03) :
I like to use the price of a carbon credit as my marker. Money talks, bullshit walks. Just my 10 cents.
10 Cents or 2 Cents – Isn’t that what a tonne of Carbon is worth these days…
What a bubble!

I’m getting a bit tired of trying to repair peoples cognitive dissonance. Some peoples belief systems are so ingrained that when presented with the irrefutable facts, they still cannot bring themselves to believing the scientific truth.
Perhaps the only way to fix them is with reincarnation as an amoeba should that be a viable option. Start all over and learn everything you should have after your current go round on Earth.

hunter (06:12:45) :
The AGW true believers are hoping that by moving the goal posts, from ice extent to volume, they can distract people from the fact that
1 – ice volume was never an issue in earlier years
2- that measuring ice volume is very dubious
3- that ice volume is irrelevant to floating ice.
The AGW hysteria was always about ice pack extent, until ice pack extent began to grow. This is typical AGW community behavior, as we have seen regarding sea levels, temperatures, tropical cyclones, etc.
The Arctic ice pack acts to insulate the water and reflect sunlight.
But this is not about ice. It is about AGW true believer’s inability to deal with inconvenient facts.
They attack a man of proven integrity, like Dr. Spencer, by mixing his religious beliefs with his science, and ignorantly judging both.
No one who is a serious student of science is ever going to conclude that being a theist disqualifies someone from being a scientist.
Dr. Spencer ahs proven himself over many decades to be a capable ethical scientist, operating transparently and with integrity. As contrasted to, say, Briffa, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, et al.
Agreed: Shifting Goal post once nature does not comply with the Official Consensus is a proven tactic… In Australia the official line has moved from measuring atmospheric temps (since they are going down) to Ocean Temps… (at least until 2005).
REF: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9075&page=0

Richard, wws’s assessment of “Pharyngula” exactly matched mine.
In fact, I was so disgusted by the raw hatred and partisan politics exhibited there when I looked around last year that I’ve never had any reason to go back.
Science? At “Pharyngula”? Yep, that’d be an obviously delusional visit to some hallucinationatory site.

I agree.
If you want to chuck a half formed idea about this kind of blog is ideal, all sorts of well informed people with all sorts of experience and ideas only too willing to discuss and debate.
Which helps test, try and shape up or reject notions which need further development.
But if you have something worth publishing then do so, on here if you wish. Do not do a dance of the seven veils, that is for novelists, movie makers and the like. For the hype rarely lives up to the reality.
Kindest Regards

George E. Smith
Sorry for the typo’s.
As Obi-won-Kanobe said, “the MTF, that’s a term I’ve not heard for a long time”. It’s been a long time since I was involved in non-linear optics, & 2D analysis. And yes I did use the FFT for the conversion to and from the frequency domain in the above analysis.
What I liked about Fourier filtering, looking at long term temperature sets, was it extended the filtered results to the end points. That is, closer to the most recent end point, better then the MOV or standard recursive filters. Besides I could do the analysis on EXCEL using VB, as I gave away my MATLAB and statistical processing packages away years ago.
Any comments on the results?

Roy Spencer (04:51:16) :
Ok, I’ll take a shot at it.
The CO2 warming models predict changes in the heat energy transportation systems. They do this wrongly by making CO2 a ferocious warming feedback.
Along comes these sudden warming events, SST’s & El Nino’s and they do persist then fade off. But, in the absence of reversal effects, they leave the Earth warmer. They ‘step it up’.
What I believe you are up to is to use the changes to the Earth as predicted by the models to look for the natural ‘smoking guns’.
One could do the same by making a forced cooling model and look for what it does to the Earth, then find some key natural ‘ice makers’.
That’s what the models are useful for: simulated warmer Earth complete with altered heat energy transportation systems.
One might open an even bigger can of worms than AGW, but the pursuit of knowledge is a rocky road.

Personally Smokey I write the Economist real letters.
And sometimes they even publish them.
But I agree this issue has really gone into La La land, to the point that it is hard to know quite what to say.
Still if there is obviously nothing more to be said some damn fool has to say it, that is usually me.
But then I always was a spoilsport, party pooper I think you say in the USA.
I mean everybody is so happy terrifying themselves with the AGW fantasy…….and too drunk on it’s delicious spine chilling horrors to worry about the bill. [ US check?]
Kindest Regards

Your nice little marker mark reminds one of the almost uslessly predictive trend-line drawing of stock technical analysis. What is to say that the graph is not two little J’s or a very sheared W or one 140 degree angle or whatever? If you showed more years you would see the trend is unmistakably anomalous, expand it out more and the GW becomes a dead vertical straight line at the end when only a single ice age in view. Consider that your entire graph (encompassing pretty well about the total period human forcing was more important than variations in natural forcing) would fit in less than 6 pixels width of the same graph rescaled between the last glacial maximum and the end of the glaciation. The same is true if the graph showed the time since humans had been evolved to survive on anything but hunting and gathering. There are certainly important natural forcers that vary from one year to the next, like the solar cycle (currently way down), volcanos – besides humans; and humans produced far less CO2 this year than nature – but the problem is that the human one is the only one that never changes sign. This is a constant presence. All on top of the much bigger water vapor GH contribution. The natural things are already in natural equilibrium, have been for 10,000 years, adding even part in 100 more watts/m^2 will cause a new equilibrium high enough to be important. It even takes a few centuries just to change to the new unnatural equilibrium, and even longer (thousands of years) to go back to the normal one. And the equilibrium we’re shooting at (what, 9 billion people, billions more industrialized on fossil fuel than today) finds every port in the world underwater: Tokyo.. New York.. London.. Hong Kong.. Rotterdam.. Venice.. New Orleans, 20/40 ft of sea level rise by the 23rd century.

rbateman (16:44:52) :
Roy Spencer (04:51:16) :
I can forsee there be difficulties in this approach.. which exists for the existing empirical data sets.,,, the resolution/ or time scale of accurate enough data to observe the smoking gun.
For example, basic agw= more co2 = more water vapour= a slightly raised lower barometric pressure?… but i dont believe for example that the data exist’s one way or the other for this.
in saying that… im a farmer, what the hell do i know 😉 Good luck Dr Spencer with yer research. I look forward to reading of it in the future.

One thing is for sure, if a sensitivity marker is being sought, it ain’t the Arctic sea ice. It sucks as any kind of marker. Let’s examine the data behind the trace that indicates we are somehow below normal and outside the two standard deviation, and should therefore run around saying, “The Arctic is melting! The Arctic is melting!”
There are 14 different Arctic areas that are monitored and that have enough of an average base that current levels can be compared to this average. Of those 14 areas, only 5 are demonstrating below average ice conditions. So it is misleading to read an overall trace (like the one to the right) and say that we are below normal. It is more accurate to say that the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea, Laptev Sea, Kara Sea, and the Arctic basin are below normal.
Now overlay the swirling and powerful vortex winds in these areas listed above, and it is quite clear why these 5 areas are not icing up along an average path. The ice is being created, only to be pushed somewhere else by the wind.
Could this explain the crickets chirping when I bring up the fact that the Arctic is not melting like it should when in an AGW crowd? Yep. The crowd has moved over there by the treering stand and they appear to be drinking coolaid made out of sawdust. No ice.

Here is my WAG:
Dr Spencer wrote on his blog a thread entitled “Brutal Cold in the IPCC Models versus Nautre” dated January 9, 2009.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/brutal-cold-in-the-ipcc-models-versus-nature/
Speaking about brutally cold arctic air masses:
“…rather than being dry because it is cold, the air instead becomes cold because it is dry. And the reason the air is so dry is because it has been slowly sinking from high in the atmosphere, where there is very little water vapor. And why is THAT air so dry? Because precipitation processes have removed the water vapor as relatively warmer and moister air ascends in low pressure areas — snowstorms — which move around the periphery of the high pressure zones that are created by the strong cooling.
So, ultimately, it is precipitation processes in regions remote from these cold high pressure areas that mostly determine how cold surface temperatures will get. ”
So his marker must be related to the low pressure areas ( snowstorms?)around these cold high pressure areas. How that would relate to long term climate projections I do not know.

Jason (17:18:21) :
The natural things are already in natural equilibrium, have been for 10,000 years,
What equilibrium?
Look at this holocene time versus temperature anomalies plot:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Mind you, the average of the different measuring methods is misleading, because there is also an error laterally mostly unknown, so follow one of the colored lines and talk of equilibrium for ten thousand years.
This dismisses your prophecy:
adding even part in 100 more watts/m^2 will cause a new equilibrium high enough to be important. It even takes a few centuries just to change to the new unnatural equilibrium, and even longer (thousands of years) to go back to the normal one. And the equilibrium we’re shooting at (what, 9 billion people, billions more industrialized on fossil fuel than today) finds every port in the world underwater: Tokyo.. New York.. London.. Hong Kong.. Rotterdam.. Venice.. New Orleans, 20/40 ft of sea level rise by the 23rd century.
even if your other math were correct.
The probability that temperatures will naturally zoom down is so high, from the above linked plot to make any human induced changes irrelevant. The plot says: no equilibrium and rule except what goes up must come down.

Re: Jim (08:29:27) :
“By what stretch of the imagination was 2007 a disaster WRT ice? Were people killed. Did polar bears go extinct? Did a bunch of animals die or any species go extinct? What’s up with that??”
—
It was disastrous ref the ice. How picky you are!

As stated previously I would go for the latitudinal position of the ITCZ and try to ascertain it’s position when the Earth is in a neutral energy balance. It would be at neutral some distance north of the equator because of the preponderance of ocean surfaces in the southern hemisphere.
I’ve no idea whether that is what Roy has in mind though.
Apparently it was just on the equator during the depths of the Little Ice Age, moved significantly north of the equator during the recent warming and has now pulled back equatorward a little once more.
I regard it as a suitable proxy for the net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined.
Incidentally the position of the ITCZ on the equator in the LIA is good evidence for a 500 year or so ocean cycle because we have all seen that the air circulation systems respond to changes in sea surface temperatures. That is now very apparent from study of ENSO events and the longer term PDO phase shifts. It seems also to apply from LIA to present times
Thus we are clearly dealing with multiple overlapping ocean cycles on at least 3 time scales namely interannual for ENSO, multidecadal for PDO phase shifts and half a millennium for each phase of the long term background trend.
Any need for another primary forcing from sun, GHGs or anything else is looking less and less necessary as time goes by.

Re: tallbloke (09:19:55) :
“And this one confirms what all the others say: that co2 lags temperature all the way to the top of the curve. Fig 4 shows the 40Ar curve and the co2 coincident, but this is because the co2 curve has been shifted 800 years to the left.
Next!”
—
No, we have to remain.
Please interpret fig. 3 (it is above fig. 4). Please point out how the interpretation in the article (quoted below) is inferior to your diametrical hypothesis. Please explain how your hypothesis may relate to the icebubble findings in the article. In short: how come you and this article conclude oppositely on the basis of the same empirical evidence?
“CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic
system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation
is probably initiated by some insolation
forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the
temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly
in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the
CO2. This sequence of events is still in full
agreement with the idea that CO2 plays,
through its greenhouse effect, a key role in
amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the
800-year time lag is short in comparison with
the total duration of the temperature and CO2
increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2
increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere
deglaciation (Fig. 3).”

Syl says:

While the climate models assume a constant relative humidity which leads to positive feedback when temps rise (and therefore should lead to negative feedback when temps fall which they never mention) they have never actually made the case for their conjecture much beyond the assertion that it is so.

(1) The climate models don’t ASSUME constant relative humidity. Rather, this is something that is an output of the models given the physics that goes into them. (Actually, I think on average the models tend to show a little bit of a drop in relative humidity as the warming occurs.)
(2) You are wrong about the idea that the feedback is negative when temps fall. The feedback is positive in both directions, meaning that it magnifies the change. So, when temperatures warm, the amount of water vapor increases and this causes further warming. When temperatures cool, the amount of water vapor decreases and this causes further cooling. In both cases, the initial change is amplified and the feedback is thus positive.
(3) Contrary to what you say, there is now considerable empirical support that the water vapor feedback is acting about as the models predict. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;323/5917/1020

Re: tallbloke (06:13:54) :
—
“Let me save Wondering aloud the trouble, as I already addressed this paper, but RR didn’t reply.”
—
Our replies crossed, mine is just above your post.

“It was disastrous ref the ice. How picky you are!”
Don’t you guys reaalize how terrible that melting was for the ice… Yes I know it happens every year, and then ice returns every year… But that one year… Oh my… that poor poor ice… Oops… I just had a terrible disaster right here in my iced tea glass… Going to the freezer for more ice…
Mike Bryant
PS you guys need to be a little more sensitive to ice’s feelings…