Despite recent claims by Justin Gillis in this NYT piece that the plateau in surface temperatures is misunderstood by scientists…
…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
…and that it is just some start point issue…
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
The starting point is almost always 1998…
It can be shown that the plateau may extend further back than that, and that nature still rules the climate system, more so than man. I’m not sure why Gillis thinks 15 years is the number people use starting at 1998, I don’t know of anyone making that claim recently. Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995, a point also brought up in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lindzen at WUWT when he said: “Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?”
More importantly, the kickoff point for this most recent discussion by The Mail’s David Rose started 16 years ago, in 1997. The 15 year/1998 choice seems like a purposeful misdirection by Gillis. Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony
More here in this essay By Dr. David Whitehouse via The GWPF
The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability.
In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting.
As Steve Goddard has interestingly pointed out recently using RSS data going back to 1990 the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a very important effect on global temperatures.
The Pinatubo eruption threw more sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere since the Krakatoa outburst in 1883. Its millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide reduced incident sunlight and had a maximum of 0.4 deg C cooling effect on global temperatures and an influence that lasted for several years.
The result of this temperature decrease is to increase the difference between the global temperatures of the 1990s and the 2000s. Removing this volcanic dip reduces quite significantly the temperature increase seen over the 1990 – 2013 period. When the errors are taken into account it is not impressive.
There was another very important volcanic eruption in the 1980s – El Chichon in 1982 – whose aerosols actually reduced solar irradiance by an even greater extent than Pinatubo.
Removing this volcanic signal also reduces the statistical significance of the rise in temperature seen since 1980. (In fact, statistically speaking, one is hard-pressed to find any statistically significant warming between 1980 – 1995.)
The El Chichon eruption is interesting because one of the strongest El Nino events, some say the strongest ever, occurred just after it. These two events had an interesting interplay for it seems that the global temperature rise induced by the warm water of the El Nino was offset by the cooling effect of the stratospheric aerosols from El Chichon. It is interesting to speculate what might had happened if El Chichon had not gone off. Would the 1982 El Nino have been as dramatic as the 1998 one? And would it have left in its wake elevated global temperatures, as 1998 seems to have done? What would have been the impact on environmental thinking, and on James Hansen’s global warming warning in 1988?
In the post-1980 global temperature data the effects of the El Ninos and La Ninas are obvious both as discrete events and as a source of ‘noise’ in the temperature of the past 16 years. The statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1980 occurred in the years after the Pinatubo eruption’s dip had ended, and before the onset of the strong 1998 El Nino. If strong El Ninos are a mechanism for changing global temperatures in a stepwise fashion we may have to wait for another strong one before the current temperature standstill ends. Perhaps we should also be looking at the link between the lifting of the post-volcanic aerosol burden and its possible effect on the initiation of El Ninos.
The Unthinkable
One of the interesting aspects of the current temperature standstill is that it persists despite several El Ninos and La Ninas.Since 2006 the influence of these events has been more pronounced in satellite data; El Ninos in 2007 and 2009-10, La Ninas in 2008, 2010–2012. These events have increased the ‘noise’ of the global temperature data in recent years.
(Courtesy Dr Roy Spencer – www.drroyspencer.com)
Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing. As usual, five more years of data will be fascinating to analyse.
Janice: Hey, Jai! LOL, welcome back. So, what’s up?
Jai: “Keep your eyes on the arctic people … .”
Janice: The arctic people? Why, what are they up to?
Jai: “… the hint I will give you is in the comparison with the … comparison … .”
[several minutes later]
Janice: I solved it! I solved it, Arthur, I mean Jai! I compared with the comparison and found …. your 2011 documentary:
Arctic People!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Arthur+christmas+movie+elves&view=detail&mid=6D2482B36DF49C55858C6D2482B36DF49C55858C&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR
Nice sweater, “Jai Mitchell.”
**************************
LOL, I don’t know if “Jai” is a true believer or drunk or Jack Nicholson having fun, but I do know that HE IS SO FUNNY!
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Your above comments (pores merging to form sunspots) is not correct.
Perhaps some excerpts from the literature will help you.
Here is what the respected solar physicist Peter Foukal says in his textbook on solar activity [Solar Astrophysics, ISBN 3-527-40374-4, from 2004, Wiley, page 240]: “A spot is born by the darkening and growth in diameter of a pore … Only a small fraction of the many pores observed turn into spots, and over half of these spots, in turn, last less than 2 days … Subsequent growth of spots that are longer lived than about a day takes place mainly by coalescence of smaller spots … Large spots that are formed by coalescence of smaller spots generally seem also to divide first into smaller spots, which then decay in situ”.
And here is what C. A. Young suad in his celebrated book ‘The Sun’ from 1881 [Appleton and Co, New York] page: “Generally, for some time before the appearance of the spot, there is an evident disturbance of the solar surface, manifested especially by the presence of numerous and brilliant faculae, among which, ‘pores’ or minute black dots are scattered. … The ‘pores’, some of them, coalesce with the principal spot, some disappear, and others constitute the attendant train [between the spots] before referred to.
Bray and Loughhead in the classic work ‘Sunspots’ [Dover, New York, ISBN 0-486-63731-X, 1964] say: “Sunspot pores are sma;;, long-lived, dark regions … it is believed that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 52] … It has been known since the time of the early visual observers that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 72] …”
And so on.
Now, unfortunately some people often forget what has been known for centuries only to re-discover the truth when new data becomes available. Here is a good example of a persistent myth that you also seem to subscribe to:
“The Hinode observations of emergent sunspot 10926 challenge traditional views of sunspot formation. Before Hinode data came on line, a solar physicist might have described the birth of a sunspot as follows:
“Sunspots are formed when a ‘rope’ of strong magnetic field beaches the visible surface of the sun (the photosphere). Magnetic ropes develop deep below the photosphere and emerge as an arcade-like structure….”
The trilobite data show a different process at work:
“The emergence of the sunspot magnetism progressed in a very complex manner, with small pieces appearing to self-assemble into larger, more coherent structures,” says Marc DeRosa, a scientist from Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, Calif. From http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18sep_trilobite/
If you cannot play the movie, there is a Youtube version:
From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm:
Thus this year is identical to the previous five-plus years when they said they’d “prove” those same things. This much longer, all they’ve done is make piles of unproven accusations that might be prosecutable as slander/libel if skeptics had as much money to sue as the warmists have to defend themselves. Hell, we have to start a legal defense fund if a skeptic has to consult a lawyer.
See the UAH lower troposphere “kitchen sink” file with all the monthly values from the start:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The ranges are at the bottom:
Global 85°S-85°N, North Hemisphere 0-85N, South Hemisphere 85S-0, Tropics 20S-20N
North Extratropic 20N-85N, South Extratropic 85S-20S, North Polar 60N-85N, South Polar 85S-60S.
Where are they only tropical?
UAH datasets, as seen in the last directory name of the URL above, are lower troposphere (t2lt), middle troposphere (t2), and lower stratosphere (t4). UAH is not tropospheric only, it’s just the lower tropospheric set that usually gets mentioned.
From the RSS site “Decadal trends” section, we have the coverage range:
So their “polar hole” up north goes to 82.5°, while UAH is 85°. Check around, it’s hard to find satellite data that doesn’t have a polar hole, even for Arctic sea ice.
So effectively, both UAH and RSS are covering the Arctic. UAH is covering 97-98% of the globe.
You should be complaining how RSS excludes so much of the Antarctic, much more than UAH. But according to the “kitchen sink” lower tropospheric data, the South Pole has actually been cooling, -0.03K/decade. That indicates if RSS did include more of the Antarctic in the TLT dataset, 70S to 82.5S, their global trend may be cooling even more.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend
They came down about as rapid as they went up, so what’s the issue? The amplitudes of the temperature movements are amplified in the lower troposphere compared to the surface sets. It works both ways, shouldn’t be an issue.
Of course not. Surface temperature datasets are set for daily high/low measurements, average those for the “average”. So if you have a 5° spike for 5 minutes, that’s the high the “average” is calculated from.
Satellites will get you the average of their measurements from their flyovers for a particular spot. Thus they won’t perfectly match the surface datasets. Being lower tropospheric, those datasets are also just high enough to avoid the contamination errors that plague surface temperature monitoring stations while still tracking the temperature changes close enough.
Since when is “The Hadley” a method?
Oh well. The BEST papers were announced, accepted by warmists, languished as “publication pending”, then were rejected. Finally a new journal was started so the BEST papers could get published and the BEST temperature dataset could finally pretend to have legitimacy.
We actually prefer Hadley for times before the satellite era, as GISS is far more messed up. If you wish to endorse the slower-warming long term dataset, feel free. But using BEST for confirmation is kind of a negative endorsement. But we’ll still use Hadley anyway.
“Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995…”
Strange how you refer to a BBC interview but, rather than link to it, you link to the Daily Mail’s interpretation of it. Why?
For anyone actually interested in the facts here, this is the actual interview on the BBC’s site :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
And, to discover more facts, surely mention should be given to the follow-up interview :
“Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant,”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
Those are the facts concerning that particular Phil Jones quote. Why not reveal them all?
When I’m thinking about analyzing the climate I’m thinking about things like I see at Nicola Scafetta’s page.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
==========
Now listen up: I’m going to say this about once. Go through this presentation. If you’re in a hurry to see if I’m messing with ya, Go to minute 20:00 of this presentation: “we get THIS BLACK LINE.”
iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
==========
You should listen to the whole thing but the guy’s english is so bad it’s hard for an American to understand.
He talks about climate “oscillations” ok – oscillations are repeated actions. When you drop a rubber ball down between two boards that are closer at the bottom, and the rubber ball goes back and forth swiftly, that’s an oscillation. When you see a pinball machine bounce the ball around quickly between two powered bumpers, that’s an oscillation. When you have a saw blade that goes one way then the other, back and forth or in an out, that’s an oscillation;
you have a hard time understanding sometimes what Nicola says.
He talks about the Heliosphere, but remember he’s coming to English from Italian, and that’s pronounced, “AaY-Lee-ohs-Feer.”
“Ayliosphere” is what an American hears.
The word “curve” he doesn’t pronounce clearly.
It’s worth listening to. It’s 28 minutes that will have you laughing in Magic Gassers’ faces even louder I guarantee you that.
He explains how, and shows you how, there are 9, 10-11, 20-22, 30, 60, 200, 1,000 year cycles,
all dependent, on the various weights, of the objects in the solar system, aligning to pull on, the gravitational center of mass,
of the sun, inside.
+++++++++
Nicola: record di avere qualcuno questa parola per parola di presentazione, che è un oratore naturale inglese.
Fate che Nicola. E ‘importante che le persone si mostrano come questo è facile.
+++++++++
NICOLA: have someone overlay this presentation you did in Japan with a natural English speaker saying what you say word for word.
Do that Nicola. It is important that you show people how easy this is.
++++++++++
Nicola Scafetta makes the sun gravitational center case look impregnable.
=========
He’s no fake hockey stick gazer like Jai Mitchell,
the ignorant clown squealing about Magic Gas.
=========
Jai Mitchell: pull a carbon dioxide signature out of THAT. LoLoLoL.
Go spray your pet rat on the mantle with some more pet safe adhesive, dump some more glitter on him, plug in those flashing lights you have nested around his cage, and get high until he tells you some more about CO2, Jai.
=========
From now on whenever someone tells me about Magic Gas I’m going to link to
the
Nicola Scafetta
talk called
“Empirical Evidences For a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and it’s Implications.”
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:54 pm
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
Leif: You repeat that like a mantra.
But do not define what interrupted means.
William: See below for an explanation and caveat.
William: At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained.
Lief: We do not know why the mechanism that assemble pores and elements into sunspots at times functions less efficiently, but with all the satellite data we will be collecting there is a good chance that we will figure it out. This will also explain why so few sunspots were formed during the Maunder Minimum.
William: We need additional solar magnetic cycle observations to discuss. There are two possibilities. 1) Solar cycle 24 is the precursor to a Maunder or Dalton minimum and 2) solar cycle 24 is an anomalous change to the solar magnetic cycle, an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. The second possibility is highly speculative and is an unnecessary distraction from resolving the fundamental questions concerning the sun-climate connection. Let’s therefore park that speculative option. I will only bring it up again if there is a NASA announcement related to that subject.
Now back to the standard hypothesis which is we are going to experience a Maunder or Dalton Minimum.
It will be super to have actual observational data to settle some of the sun-earth connection questions. I would expect by this time next year there will be unequivocal cooling. There is currently early observational evidence of cooling.
William: At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.
Lief: That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.
William: As noted if the planet now cools your most recent re-assessment of sunspot and cosmic data will have been shown to be incorrect. The last change to a proxy data set is not necessarily the correct change. As I noted there has been 15 years of disagreements concerning the interpretation of the geomagnetic proxy record. The analysis of the geomagnetic field record converged to the new standard interpretation: the geomagnetic field is not as stable as once thought. The geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 cyclically. There is no physical explanation as to why the geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. The typical first step in analyzing an anomaly is for a group of people to try to make it go away by a re-interpretation of data sets.
William: That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the planet
Lief: Cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. You seem to think that cooling implies magnetic cycle ‘interruption’. Since cooling has happened many time even as recently as the 1960s, there must have been many interruptions.
William: Yes cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. Warming of the planet is also not a unique phenomenon. There is evidence of cyclic warming and cooling of the planet that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
It is asserted by a number of researchers, that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming and cooling is caused by the typical solar magnetic cycle changes. There is no need to appeal to an interruption of the solar magnetic cycle to explain what is observed. An example is the Mediaeval Warm period that was followed by the Little Ice age.
It has been assumed by the warmists that 100% of the warming in the last 70 years is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are a number of observations that do not support that assertion. The alternative hypothesis is a significant portion of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
Observations over the next few years will settle that question. As I noted, the data indicates that some mechanism has inhibited GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover. As there is now the start of cooling, it appears we will return to the normal GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanisms.
William: The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing.
Lief: That is not a model, but rather a fact that has been known for more than a century.
William: Perhaps fact is a little strong. It is fact that the sun is hot. I am not sure it is a fact that pores form in the convection zone and then combine to form sunspots. You movie does not resolve where the magnetic ropes came from that form sunspots on the surface of the sun. There is more than one solar magnetic cycle model. As I stated Parker provided theoretical reasons why sunspots where not created from pores in the convection zone.
The alternative model is sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that are formed in the tachocline. The magnetic field strength of the ropes is much stronger than the field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun. As the rope rises through the convection zone it loses strength. A minimum field strength is required for the rope to avoid being torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone. What we are currently observing, the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots decaying linearly, supports the assertion that the rope mechanism in the tachocline has been ‘interrupted’.
It does not however follow that an ‘interruption’ to the rope mechanism will lead to the highly speculative ‘interruption’ of the solar magnetic cycle. What we are observing could be the physical reason for a Maunder minimum.
William: A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun…the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone.
Lief: That happens in every solar cycle. Sunspots form when the torn apart ropes reassemble at the surface.
William: The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots does not decay linearly across multiple solar cycles every solar cycle. Penn and Livingston’s observation is anomalous.
William: the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning
Lief: If the solar cycle is stopped it will never get started again.
William: A solar magnetic cycle interruption is highly speculative. Let’s park that subject. I do not want it be a distraction from the sun-climate connection which we will soon have observational data to discuss.
In the high unlikely event there is a NASA announcement of a significant unexplained change to the solar magnetic cycle, I can provide a hypothesis to explain what is happening.
jai mitchell says-
“hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to…” blah blah blah
This comment has convinced me that jai mitchell is a software app that blenderizes alarmist talking points together into meaningless pap. Note that either definition of pap applies.
Phil says-
“In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.
———————
No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM””
———————
The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030.
***
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm
And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.
***
500 yrs? Evidence? Without evidence, I conclude you pulled that figure out of your behind. Models I’ve seen (linked by Dr Svalgaard) use a few yrs for land to experience 70% of CO2 changes, and 10 yrs for deep oceans.
William Astley says:
June 13, 2013 at 2:08 am
Lief: That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.
William: As noted if the planet now cools your most recent re-assessment of sunspot and cosmic data will have been shown to be incorrect.
The re-assessment [not just by me, but by a broad section of solar experts, e.g. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf is based on solar and cosmic ray data. The assumption that the climate can be used as a solar indicator is putting the cart before the horse [circular logic].
The analysis of the geomagnetic field record converged to the new standard interpretation: the geomagnetic field is not as stable as once thought. The geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 cyclically. There is no physical explanation as to why the geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. The typical first step in analyzing an anomaly is for a group of people to try to make it go away by a re-interpretation of data sets.
Apart from being irrelevant to the re-assessment of the solar situation, your musings on the geomagnetic field are confused and wrong.
The alternative hypothesis is a significant portion of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
It is not a question of THE alternative hypothesis, there are many other ones, e.g. changes in ocean currents.
the data indicates that some mechanism has inhibited GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover.
This is nonsense; a much simpler view is that the relationship was spurious to begin with, so it is no surprise that it has broken down.
I am not sure it is a fact that pores form in the convection zone and then combine to form sunspots.
Nobody says that. Rather, flux ropes are shredded on their way to the surface and emerge as a collection of little pores and scattered magnetic elements. These re-assemble to fom sunspots. The re-assembly is an observed fact.
Penn and Livingston’s observation is anomalous
It provides a simple explanation for the absence of visible spots during Grand Minima, even though the magnetic cycle is operating as usual.
I can provide a hypothesis to explain what is happening.
We already have a fairly good hypothesis for that [varying efficiency of the re-assembly process].
William Astley says:
June 13, 2013 at 2:08 am
It is fact that the sun is hot.
Not according to the fake fisics of the Greenhouse Effect – one the reasons given for the millions of degree hot Sun’s direct heat energy not reaching us is the claim the Sun is not hot, that it is only “6,000°C and radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and only insignificant of insignificant reaches us”…
The AGW Greenhouse Effect Illusion energy budget gets this figure by its planckian estimation of their Sun’s temperature from the narrow 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around the Sun, the thin photosphere.
Their Greenhouse Effect distracts from the fact that in its fantasy world they do not get any direct heat from their Sun to their Earth, which in the real world is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat thermal infrared longwave, by claiming that this photosphere ring of visible light is what we feel as heat and it is this light which heats their Earth’s land and water.
Impossible physics of course in the real world.
@beng
it takes about 500 years for the oceans’ conveyor belt to complete one cycle.
“jai mitchell is a software app” [chris y]
Aw, Chris, you’re just mad because he called you “chrisy” above, LOL.
Seriously, I think you are correct. I have (only intuitively) thought he/she/it smacked of artificial intelligence. Close-but-not-quite-on-target. And, in case I (and Chris) am wrong, Jai, given that I really believe (at this point) you to be the Magic Gas Software app, I’m only criticizing the shortcomings of its code writers.
IT’S STILL A LOT OF FUN, THOUGH! Heh, heh, heh!
Heh, heh, reminds me of “Uniblab” from an episode of “The Jetson’s” …. “Spacely’s a stupe! Spacely’s a stupe!”
If you are a real person, get help. You are clearly in denial …. or something.
{ jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm
hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed. }
hmmm, So you’re more interested in recording temperature, a relatively useless metric, than thermal energy, which includes humidity??
dbstealey says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
jai mitchell is a religious True Believer, who wouldn’t know real science if it bit him on the a …nkle.
….
In short, mitchell is a religious True Believer who will never accept the fact that global warming has not accelerated [despite the large rise in CO2]. Thus, science has nothing to do with mitchell’s cherry-picked belief system. He is merely an enabler of the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture. The good thing is that mitchell and his ilk are fading from the scene, as the public becomes aware of the true situation.
correct. I had an exchange of posts in the thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/08/by-the-numbers-having-the-courage-to-do-nothing/#comment-1332333
where I had to repeat him several times that the Global Sea Ice Anomaly is above the average and he is looking only at the Arctic.
From the exchange I also got the impression that he is a true believer, not a person really interested in understanding the science around climate, and not looking at the data as is, but only as it fits the belief.
If we look at the temerature graph from 1964 to 2009 (solar cycles 20-23) we see four distinct upward steps. These steps are not linear, but are eliptical minor arcs punctuating these four solar cycles. What is revealing about the plateau is that solar cycle 24 breaks the upward trend and lies almost even with cycle 23. This may be as close to a cooling trend as we are going to get (or maybe not). These are very exciting times for researchers. This plateau represents the potential beginning of a pause in solar activity that happens every 115 years (Scafetta). If there is a cooling period on the horizon, it should happen incrementally over the next 16 years.
First a common error out of the way. The discussion of volcanic cooling is off track. First, there is that superstition that the 1992/93 La Nina was caused by Pinatubo cooling. That is rubbish. Any and all so-called volcanic cooling incidents are nothing more than La Nina coolings misidentified as volcanic coolings because by chance they happened to be at the right distance from an eruption and got recruited for its volcanic cooling. Pinatubo just happened to erupt at the time when the La Nina cooling was beginning. El Chichon, on the other hand, just happened to erupt when an El Nino was beginning. That is how it got a nice El Nino peak instead of the volcanic cooling it was supposedly entitled to. The largest eruption of the twentieth century was Katmai and it, too, left nary a sign of cooling because it, too, erupted when an El Nino was forming. This applies to all volcanic “coolings” on record – just check it out yourself. The true cooling from an eruption is probably comparable to a cloudiness incident and indistinguishable from it. Now for Justin Gillis. He just tries to weasel-word his way around the fact that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. Fact is that atmospheric carbon dioxide level is the highest ever but it is not able to cause any of that greenhouse warming, the alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) according to a gaggle of so-called “climate scientists.” I judge this fact to be sufficient to prove their greenhouse warming hypothesis wrong. The present standstill is not the only one on record. A study of satellite temperature records that begin in 1979 reveals another 18 year standstill of global temperature from 1979 to early 1997. This did not appear in ground-based temperature records which showed a “late twentieth century warming” in that same time slot. I pointed out the discrepancy in my book “What Warming?” but nothing happened. Until last fall, that is, when GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC temperature depositories in unison decided to give up this phony warming and adopt the satellite temperature values for the eighties and the nineties. I regard this joint action as an admission that they knew this warming was false. This means that we now have a no-warming period from 1979 to 1997 plus the entire twenty-first century. Between them is only a small window, enough to accommodate the super El Nino of 1998 and its associated step warming. That step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only four years. It was oceanic, not atmospheric in nature. As a result, all temperatures of the twenty-first century are now higher than those of the nineties. Hansen noticed that and pointed out that of ten warmest years, nine happened after 2000. Not surprising because they all sit on that high platform created by the step warming of 1998. This leaves no room for any greenhouse warming since 1979, a total of 34 years without warming. In view of this, can anyone believe that warming prior to 1979 was greenhouse warming? Not likely. This should be the end of the global warming delusion.
chris y says:
June 13, 2013 at 5:09 am
Phil says-
“In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.
———————
No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM””
———————
The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030.
Figure 3 shows the 5 year running mean of ΔT increasing out to 2040!
When I put ” ” around a sentence it means it’s a quotation, so no he didn’t make the prediction you said that he did.
Phil. says-
“Figure 3 shows the 5 year running mean of ΔT increasing out to 2040!
When I put ” ” around a sentence it means it’s a quotation, so no he didn’t make the prediction you said that he did.”
The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030. But I agree with you that Hansen predicted temperatures would continue to rise, exceeding another 0.5 degrees after the predicted plateau.
***
jai mitchell says:
June 13, 2013 at 9:46 am
@beng
it takes about 500 years for the oceans’ conveyor belt to complete one cycle.
***
Actually, it takes about 1000 yrs. But the deep water is a remnant of colder temps/near-freezing meltwater, so does not increase temps significantly. Your 500 yr statement is absurd. Like I said, if you’re on land (most of us are), 70% of CO2 effect occurs in a mere few yrs. There’s little heat in the “pipeline”. That’s exactly what Trenberth was lamenting on.
Curious that warmists are worried that warming has stalled. Since there is zero probability that China or India will cease accelerating CO2 release, they should be greatly relieved. Conclusion: concern is about losing power that these conspirators have managed to accumulate. Concern is not for the inhabitants of earth.