From Penn State , another Mann paper with proxy sets, and a divergence problem. At least they are talking about the MWP, or as they call it, the Medieval Climate Anomaly which had been erased in previous papers Mann had been involved with. The attempt to link paleo data to the PDO is interesting too. Mann was not lead author, and hopefully none of the flawed PCA math he’s used to mess up other papers made it into this one. I’m hopeful, as the SI contains some equations/code.
The gist of the paper is this: they wanted to determine patterns of drought in the Pacific Northwest, so the authors used proxy data obtained both from tree rings and from oxygen isotopes related to lake sediments.
According to lead author Byron Steinman.“The data matched up on a short-term, decadal scale, however, on a longer-term, century scale, the records diverged. The tree-ring data suggests dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers while the isotope data suggest wetter-than-expected winters.”
New methods help scientists shed light on ancient climates
Tree ring and oxygen isotope data from the U.S. Pacific Northwest do not provide the same information on past precipitation, but rather than causing a problem, the differing results are a good thing, according to a team of geologists.
The researchers are trying to understand the larger spatial patterns and timing of drought in the arid and semiarid areas of the American West.
“We generally understand that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warm period in much of the northern hemisphere that occurred about 950 to 1250 was a dry period in the American West,” said Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral researcher in meteorology, Penn State. “But there is complexity to the patterns of drought and it may not have been dry in winter in the Pacific Northwest.”
East of the Cascade Mountains, the Pacific Northwest is dry and hot in the summer and wet in the winter now.
Estimates of past precipitation are made from proxies like tree rings, which can record amounts of precipitation and temperature. But tree rings are better at recording what happens during the spring and summer, when the tree is growing, than in the winter when the tree is not.
Steinman, who worked with Mark B. Abbott, professor of geology and planetary science, University of Pittsburgh, his Ph.D. advisor, looked at oxygen isotopes found in 1,500 years of sediment at the bottom of lakes. The isotopic composition of these sediments can reflect the amount of water that enters the lake, especially during the wet season.
The analyzed lake sediments contain calcium carbonate in the form of calcite. The oxygen isotope ratios in this mineral relate directly to the isotope ratio of water in the lake. The researchers looked at sediment from two small lakes in Washington state. Castor Lake is on a plateau and water inflow is only from precipitation and groundwater. This lake has no outflow, so most water loss is through evaporation. Lime Lake, on the other hand, loses the majority of water through a permanent outflow stream, although all water enters in the same manner as for Castor Lake. By comparing the two lakes, the researchers could determine the water balance between evaporation and precipitation.
The researchers looked at two stable isotopes of oxygen — oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 — in the sediments. Oxygen 16 is lighter than oxygen 18, so during evaporation and lake draw down, more oxygen 16 evaporates out and the calcite in the sediments contain more oxygen 18. If the lakes are full of water, then there will be more oxygen 16 in the calcite. The layers of sediment that are laid down each year can be dated either by using carbon 14 dating of organic material or by locating layers of tephra — volcanic ash, that signifies known — dated volcanic eruptions. In this way, the researchers could pinpoint when drought occurred.
“The tree ring data and isotope data match up on a short term, decadal scale,” said Steinman. “On a longer term, century scale, the records diverge.”
While the decadal ups and down remain the same for both proxies, when viewed on a 100-year or longer scale, the proxies show differences. The tree ring data suggest dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers, while the isotope data suggests wetter than expected winters.
Comparing the lake sediment records to existing records of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a warming or cooling of the coastal waters off the Pacific Northwest, the researchers report in the current online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “a strong centennial timescale relationship over the past 1,500 years between winter precipitation amounts in eastern Washington and Pacific Decadal Oscillation temperature anomalies.”
The PDO is linked to the El Nino Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that influences global weather patterns. During and before the Medieval Climate Anomaly, the North Pacific Ocean was warmer and Washington had greater precipitation than during the Little Ice Age, which occurred from about 1450 to 1850, when there was less precipitation.
Steinman used a previously published and validated model based on established lake physics and modern recorded precipitation and temperature to determine the amounts of rainfall indicated by the isotopic record
“The best thing we could do now is to produce additional quantitative precipitation records, this time with different lake systems,” said Steinman.
Other researchers on this project were Michael E. Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center; Nathan D. Stansell, former Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, now a research fellow, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University and Bruce Finney, professor of biological sciences, Idaho State University.
The National Science Foundation funded this research.
=============================================================
Paper: 1500 year quantitative reconstruction of winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, by Byron A. Steinman, Mark B. Abbott, Michael E. Mann, Nathan D. Stansell, and Bruce P. Finney, PNAS, 2012.
Abstract
Multiple paleoclimate proxies are required for robust assessment of past hydroclimatic conditions. Currently, estimates of drought variability over the past several thousand years are based largely on tree-ring records. We produced a 1,500-y record of winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest using a physical model-based analysis of lake sediment oxygen isotope data. Our results indicate that during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (900–1300 AD) the Pacific Northwest experienced exceptional wetness in winter and that during the Little Ice Age (LIA) (1450–1850 AD) conditions were drier, contrasting with hydroclimatic anomalies in the desert Southwest and consistent with climate dynamics related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). These findings are somewhat discordant with drought records from tree rings, suggesting that differences in seasonal sensitivity between the two proxies allow a more compete understanding of the climate system and likely explain disparities in inferred climate trends over centennial timescales.
-
Data deposition: Precipitation reconstruction data are available for download at the NCDC/NOAA Paleoclimate data archive website (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo).
-
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1201083109/-/DCSupplemental.
that non existent global warming just killed 30 people in america. hundreds drown in flooding in russia. . extreme weather is just imaginary eh smokey?
smokey, some of your graphs look like they were drawn by a five year old. your temp global mean chart comes with no sources. where does the graph come from? certainly not nasa. i suggest you upgrade and go to the nasa website. their graphs actually look scientific and includes in depth commentary.
smokey, wood for trees org. the people you used as a source for a temp graph is not a scientific group. their data has not been through the scientific process. it has no credibility. they certainly do not have their own satelite and scientists. how can you compare them to nasa? simply absurd
david brown says:
July 7, 2012 at 12:21 pm
bill, you missed the moon as an integral point of ocean behaviour.
I clearly said “tidal effects.” It appears that English is not your first language, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
i think your comparisons between the sun and the ocean is rather silly.. it has nothing to do with the fact that solar activity effects climate. and that by definition means it is a forcing agent
It was an example of the difference between a source and a forcing. Your English comprehension is a only a minor problem — your major problems are
1. that you demand scientific proof of skeptic statements and then either ignore the proof or deride it when it’s given, and
2. you continue to put forth your own opinions as scientifically accepted facts without backing them up.
david brown says:
July 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Solar minimums and maximums are the two extremes of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle.[1
see bill. the eleven year cycle is actually part of the solar minimum. you still have solar cycles even during a minimum.
You just shot down your own argument. Here is a basic primer — it may help:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engzonnecyclus.html
and here’s an expansion on it.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf
and the sun is both an energy source” and a forcing agent”. why cant it be both?
The sun is the driver by definition. By your logic, a bus driver is also a passenger in the rear of the bus.
a forcing agent is anything that ”forces ” climate to change. hence the name. and increased or decreased solar activity forces climate to change.
“Driver” and “forcing agent” already have set definitions — you’re not allowed to make up your own definitions based on what you think they should be.
i suggest you ask a friend who knows more than you what a forcing agent is. or better still. read a basic science book.
I suggest you lose that self-appointed superiority. You’ve already demonstrated your ignorance of both science and the proper use of its terminology.
europe went to war in 1939 by the way. and american industry was contributing to the war effort well before 1942. industrial aerosols cool, just as aerosols from volcanos cool. that is an established fact.
The established fact is that *Europe* went to war in 1939, but US industry didn’t crank up to wartime footing until 1942. We didn’t start providing surplus weapons to Britain until mid-1941, and most of what we sent overseas prior to that was food and gasoline, which didn’t contribute squat to the amount of aerosols needed for the cooling your supposition requires.
the increase or decrease in aerosols will effect the climate. if warming increased ten years before action was taken on aerosols, that could have been for a number of reasons. less aerosols due to better technology. less manufacturing or increased solar activity.
You try to invent your own terms, you try to invent your own history, now you’re trying to invent your own technological advances, and then you assume that your unsupported suppositions prove your assertions. Major error.
the final nail in your coffin is on one hand you say the sun is not in a minimum. meaning it is increasing in activity. but then you say the global temp is cooling.. that my friend, contradicts and destroys your argument
I’ve told you before to *stop putting words in my mouth* – I never said that the sun was not in a minimum, and the graphs I linked to clearly show that we entered the present minimum in late 2003. What I *said* was that we haven’t been in a 40-year solar minimum. You claim that we are and haven’t presented anything in evidence except your statement – no citations, no quotes, no links, just your statement. Your NASA snippet only verifies that we’re in the minimum of the current 11-year solar cycle.
david brown says:
July 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
if warming increased ten years before action was taken on aerosols, that could have been for a number of reasons. less aerosols due to better technology. less manufacturing or increased solar activity.
The industrial stack scrubber was only invented seven years after the temperature began to rise and wasn’t in widespread use until the ‘80s, after the EPA regulations kicked in — your “less aerosols” supposition won’t wash.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3685262.pdf
US manufacturing shifted from producing armaments to consumer goods in 1946 and heavy industrial manufacturing continued to *increase* until 1979 — your “less manufacturing” supposition won’t wash.
http://www.stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1987/09/art4full.pdf
So, the warming began after WWII despite all the aerosols and no reduction in heavy manufacturing, and the cooling in the ’60s and early ’70s was taking place while CO2 was increasing.
Which — in the limited options you listed — leaves the sun as the driver for both.
improved technology would have meant less aerosols
nasa and every group involved in the study of the sun say we have been in a minimum for 40 years. the sun is a forcing agent as it forces the climate to change. that is why forcing agents are called forcing agents. we are discussing climate, not oceans or bus drivers. you could have combined the two and your irrelevant analogy could have been the captain of a submarine. i am not ignorant of science. i am repeating what nasa and all major science groups say. and they know more about the subject than either one of us. the difference is i am not challenging the science and you are. the onus is on you to really know what you are talking about. and you clearly have very limited knowledge in the area bill.
if we have been in a minimum since 2003 why is global temp still rising? because the study was from 2003 that does not mean that is when the minimum started. and again i ask how can the planet warm naturally during a solar minimum. the decade 2000 to 2010 was the hottest on record according to the world met and nasa. your sources are not on par with mine. i have every major science group on earth behind me, including nasa, i am not even sure who your sources are. can you name them and the individual peer reviewed papers they have released?
bill you are forgetting germany and japans industrial output in aerosols. or do you think the allies fought themselves? Hitler’s preparation for war began in the mid 30s. as did japans. the uk was a massive manufacturing country even before the war.
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).
A common claim amongst climate “skeptics” is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by “skeptics” for “Global Cooling”. Then 1995 followed by 2002. ‘Skeptics’ have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.
NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?
To find out whether there is actually a “cooling trend,” it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, ‘skeptics’ cherrypick short periods of time, usually about 10 years or less.
‘Skeptics’ also take selected areas of the world where cold records for the recent past are being set while ignoring other areas where all time heat records are being set.
The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from January 1979 to November 2010. The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.
The red line represents the average temperature. The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; a weather phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean gives out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms of the curves are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth over short timeframes of 1-2 years.
Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.
bill, i am ”backing up ” my argument with peer reviewed published studies and studies from nasa. all of which confirm my statements. now i await your sources
The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.
Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.
The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.
Understanding what drives climate does not occur by a process of elimination. It’s happens by a process of integration. There are many influences of climate that all need to be considered together to gain the full picture. The following lists the radiative forcing, loosely defined as the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere, from the various factors that affect climate (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Positive radiative forcing has a warming effect (so obviously, negative radiative forcing has a cooling effect).
Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth’s albedo – the planet’s surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.
Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.
this is a comment from a phd in physics bill. note he shows various climate drivers[ forcing agents ] one of them is solar activity. which means the sun is a forcing agent. you say i do not ”back up ” my argument? i have included sources and peer reviewed published research. i have many more. but you get my drift.
bill i hope you now realise that the sun is a driver of climate. a driver of climate and a forcing agent mean the same thing
External forcing: a forcing agent outside the climate system causing a change in the climate system. Volcanic eruptions, solar variations and anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere and land use change are external forcings.
this is the scientific definition of a forcing agent bill. please not ”solar variations ” is included.
bill you fail to take into account increases in solar activity. this would increase temp, even if aerosols were having a cooling effect. that explains why there was warming before aerosols were limited. the bottom line is that for the last decade temp has been increasing while solar activity has been decreasing [ your own claim ] so what is causing the increase in temp? it is a simple question.
david brown says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:25 am
improved technology would have meant less aerosols
The improved technology wasn’t even invented until 1978, which you might have learned if you’d actually read the patent I linked to.
And at July 8, 2012 at 4:34 am:
nasa and every group involved in the study of the sun say we have been in a minimum for 40 years.
Prove it by producing a link, or the statement itself. You’ve had days to do that, and you keep asserting it and refusing to provide proof.
the difference is i am not challenging the science and you are. the onus is on you to really know what you are talking about. and you clearly have very limited knowledge in the area bill.
The difference is that I’m giving you information and sources and you’re merely parroting AGW talking points.
And at July 8, 2012 at 4:40 am:
if we have been in a minimum since 2003 why is global temp still rising?
You keep asserting the temperature is rising without providing proof except to keep repeating “world met” says so, yet you dismiss the empirical data Smokey provided which shows otherwise.
I thought you said you understood science. You’ve made basic mistakes and said some fairly stupid things in your comments here – this one (July 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm): smokey, some of your graphs look like they were drawn by a five year old. your temp global mean chart comes with no sources, for instance tells me you’re not smart enough to decode the reference source, which was right at the top of the chart. And this one, because the study was from 2003 that does not mean that is when the minimum started tells me you not only don’t know the difference between a study and a website entry, you can’t even tell when it was written. The NASA article is from 2009, and one of the points on the accompanying graph was 2003.
your sources are not on par with mine. i have every major science group on earth behind me, including nasa, i am not even sure who your sources are. can you name them and the individual peer reviewed papers they have released?
You haven’t proven a damned thing, child, you’ve merely made an appeal to authority without providing a shred of actual information to back up your statement. You’ve also ignored that every reference I’ve given you has been either from NASA, from educational sites and sources that provide links to the *peer-reviewed* authors and papers they cited, which you first failed to read and then challenged me to provide sources.
And at July 8, 2012 at 4:45 am:
bill you are forgetting germany and japans industrial output in aerosols. or do you think the allies fought themselves? Hitler’s preparation for war began in the mid 30s. as did japans. the uk was a massive manufacturing country even before the war.
Japan’s industrialization began in 1890 and her military industrialization began in the late 1920s – and the USSR wasn’t far behind. And yet, with all those aerosols floating around, the 1930s was the warmest decade of the 20th Century – at least it was until NASA/GISS began arbitrarily adjusting the historical temperatures downward.
And at July 8, 2012 at 5:04 am:
”A common claim amongst climate ‘skeptics’ is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by ‘skeptics’ for ‘Global Cooling’. Then 1995 followed by 2002. ‘Skeptics’ have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.”
(remainder of AGW propaganda diatribe snipped)
bill, i am ”backing up ” my argument with peer reviewed published studies and studies from nasa. all of which confirm my statements. now i await your sources
You have provided *nothing* except some paragraphs that sound like they’re from Real Climate. Do you have one single clue what “providing sources” means?
And at July 8, 2012 at 5:28 am:
“Understanding what drives climate does not occur by a process of elimination. It’s happens by a process of integration. There are many influences of climate that all need to be considered together to gain the full picture.”
That’s the first intelligent quote you’ve pasted. Where did it come from? IOW, what’s the source?
this is a comment from a phd in physics bill. note he shows various climate drivers[ forcing agents ] one of them is solar activity. which means the sun is a forcing agent. you say i do not ”back up ” my argument? i have included sources and peer reviewed published research. i have many more. but you get my drift.
WHAT IS THE SOURCE, OTHER THAN “A Ph.D IN PHYSICS”?!? Geez, it’s like pulling teeth…
And at July 8, 2012 at 5:33 am:
bill i hope you now realise that the sun is a driver of climate. a driver of climate and a forcing agent mean the same thing
Okay, which one of you smarter-than-I-am commenters here can explain the difference between a driver and a forcing agent to brainchild, here?
And at July 8, 2012 at 6:50 am
bill you fail to take into account increases in solar activity. this would increase temp, even if aerosols were having a cooling effect. that explains why there was warming before aerosols were limited. the bottom line is that for the last decade temp has been increasing while solar activity has been decreasing [ your own claim ] so what is causing the increase in temp? it is a simple question.
I’ve given you the answer and you keep refusing to accept that there was been *no* temperature increase during the last decade.
aerosols have a cooling effect bill, be it industrial or by volcanos. that is why there is cooling after a major eruption. that is an undisputed fact .there may well have been a warming during heavy industrial periods. however that was simply caused by an increase in solar activity or by an increase in c02. without the aerosols it would have been much warmer. ”an appeal to authority” is simply appealing to an authority who knows more about the subject than i do. if my car broke down i would take it to a mechanic. that is appealing to authority as well. it is commonsense to accept what an authority tells you if they provide evidence to support their claim. or have a track record of being right .and nasa and the world met [ and mechanics ] do. do you not accept gravity as a fact, or natural selection or relativity? because they are the same people who tell you the planet is warming and that we are probably responsible. a ”driver” of climate means it [ the driver ] is driving climate to change , or ”forcing it to change”. they mean the same thing. the world met and nasa say the last decade has been the warmest on record. they provide research data and satelite observations to back their claim. you can find their conclusions online. you provide no data, no sources and repeat parrot like, that it is not warming. yet claim the sun is not cooling. there is a contradiction there. how can the sun be warming and the planet cooling. you need to appeal to authority mate. your present strategy is not working
Figure 8: Solar contribution to global warming according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, blue), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, green), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, purple).
It’s not the Sun
As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,
here are some sources bill. lean and rind. i would also check the tung/ camp studies of solar activity. i am providing the sources. now it is up to you to do the rest. i have thousands if you are interested? something tells me you are not? it would mean accepting you are incorrect. climate skeptics tend to blindly cling to their ideology
Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an
Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
2
3
4
5
6
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington,
USA
a study for you bill. it is peer reviewed and published
To say we’re currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.
Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth’s total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.
see bill. global warming is not just surface temp as you seem to think it is. you can google the murphy study. go on appeal to authority. they know more about the subject than you
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D17107, 14 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009JD012105
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950
D. M. Murphy
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
S. Solomon
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
R. W. Portmann
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
K. H. Rosenlof
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
P. M. Forster
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
T. Wong
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA
We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols. After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ).
here is the murphy study bill. i am including sources to counter the accusation that i have nothing to back me up. you can see i have a lot to back me up. peer reviewed studies. and data from nasa. you seem to have nothing?