Warming since 1950s partly caused by El Niño
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 11, 2013) – A natural shift to stronger warm El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years, according to new research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
“Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we’ve seen since the 1950s,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAH’s Earth System Science Center and the new study’s lead author. “But we also found that because the globe has had more frequent La Niña cooling events in the past ten or fifteen years, they are canceling out some of the effects of global warming.”
The paper detailing this research, “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes During 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model,” is scheduled for publication in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, and is available online at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z.
The results also suggest the world will warm by 1.3 C (about 2.34° F) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is only one-half of the warming expected by most climate researchers.
General circulation climate models — such as those used to forecast global climate change — do not reproduce the tendency toward 30 year periods of stronger El Niño or La Niña activity, as are seen in nature.
Spencer and co-author Dr. Danny Braswell used all of the usual climate modeling forcings — including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas enrichment — in their study, but also plugged the observed history of El Niño ocean warming and La Niña ocean cooling events into their model to calculate the 61-year change in global ocean temperature averages from the sea surface to a depth of 2,000 meters.
“We used the observed ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) history since the 1950s as a pseudo forcing factor of the model,” Spencer said.
When they ran their ocean model without ENSO, they arrived at the same general conclusions as the more complex general circulation climate models. When they added data from past El Niño and La Niña events as only a change in ocean mixing, the model indicated a climate system that is slightly less sensitive to CO2-induced warming than has been believed.
But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.
“As a result, because as much as 50% of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Niño activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed”, Spencer said.
“Basically, previously it was believed that if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures would warm about 2.5 C,” Spencer said. That’s 4.5° F. “But when we factor in the ENSO warming, we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2.”
It was previously known that Pacific Ocean warming and cooling events come and go in roughly 30-year periods of predominance, where El Niño warming events are stronger than La Niño cooling events for approximately 30 years, followed by roughly three decades where the reverse is true.
During the period of this study, cooling events were dominant from the 1950s into the late 1970s. That was followed by a period of strong El Niño warming activity that lasted into the early 2000s. The current phase has seen increased La Niña cooling activity.
Spencer said it is reasonable to suspect that the increased La Niña cooling might be largely responsible for an ongoing “pause” in global warming that has lasted more than a decade. If that is the case, weak warming might be expected to revive when this phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle shifts back to a warmer El Niño period.
The study was the result of a debate over whether clouds can be part of an active forcing mechanism for global warming, or are just a passive response to temperature change.
“What we found is, to explain the satellite data we had to invoke a change in clouds nine months before the peak of either an El Niño or a La Niña,” Spencer said. “When the clouds change, it takes time for that to translate into a temperature change.
“We get the best fit to the observations when we let clouds cause some of the temperature change. These cloud changes are occurring before the temperature starts to respond, so they can’t be caused by the temperature changes.”
Before an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, global cloud cover decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the Earth’s surface and be converted into heat. On the flip side, before a La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling event, cloud cover increases, shading more of the Earth’s surface and reflecting an increased amount of solar energy back into space.
While changes in cloud cover intensify the warming or cooling of these ocean events,
Spencer and Braswell still found that two-thirds of the sea surface temperature changes during both El Niño and La Niña events are driven by changes in ocean mixing. But the one-third forcing by clouds turns out to be an important component, substantially changing our interpretation of how sensitive the climate system is to CO2 emissions.
— 30 —
============================================================
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
Abstract
Global average ocean temperature variations to 2,000 m depth during 1955–2011 are simulated with a 40 layer 1D forcing-feedback-mixing model for three forcing cases. The first case uses standard anthropogenic and volcanic external radiative forcings. The second adds non-radiative internal forcing (ocean mixing changes initiated in the top 200 m) proportional to the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) to represent an internal mode of natural variability. The third case further adds ENSO-related radiative forcing proportional to MEI as a possible natural cloud forcing mechanism associated with atmospheric circulation changes. The model adjustable parameters are net radiative feedback, effective diffusivities, and internal radiative (e.g., cloud) and non-radiative (ocean mixing) forcing coefficients at adjustable time lags. Model output is compared to Levitus ocean temperature changes in 50 m layers during 1955–2011 to 700 m depth, and to lag regression coefficients between satellite radiative flux variations and sea surface temperature between 2000 and 2010. A net feedback parameter of 1.7Wm−2 K−1 with only anthropogenic and volcanic forcings increases to 2.8Wm−2 K−1 when all ENSO forcings (which are one-third radiative) are included, along with better agreement between model and observations. The results suggest ENSO can influence multi-decadal temperature trends, and that internal radiative forcing of the climate system affects the diagnosis of feedbacks. Also, the relatively small differences in model ocean warming associated with the three cases suggests that the observed levels of ocean warming since the 1950s is not a very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity.
Naw. It’s 5:00 somewhere.
Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
Pamela Gray says:
November 11, 2013 at 11:19 am
I’ve pulled it all together here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Conceptually rather than quantitaive but it sets out real world observations over the past three climate regimes and shows how they can fit together.
Its strange how often I post links but very few read them. I suppose that is normal.
“WATER not CO2 is the big GHG that controls the thermostasis in our climate system”
Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/
Pamela asked:
“What does it say when ENSO is neutral about your solar theory? Come on. Spill it. What have been the solar parameters when ENSO has been in neutral territory (IE between -.5 and +.5)?”
Totally different timescales.
I start from the millennial solar cycle and then work down to ENSO variability which is just a couple of years or so. Periods of La Nada make little difference in the broad scheme of things.
I see that you have read my stuff after all but I don’t agree that the top down solar effect is tenuous. Lots of recent evidence coming to the fore about variations in UV affecting air circulation.
No one has yet pointed out that any part of my sequential narrative is incorrect. Indeed I know it isn’t having observed three successive climate regimes.
The only things left to argue over are the precise mechanisms.
Fresh from the MISPWOSO (Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious). When I first heard about global warming back in 1989-1990 I dismissed it almost instantly because the first thing that occurred to me was that more heat = more evaporation which = more clouds which = higher albedo, which = less insolent solar radiation which = less heat, which = lowering the temperature, which is a natural regulator of global temperatures.
Thank you Dr. Spenser for doing the hard work to lead others, who must be painted into a corner before they will reason this intuitive concept out on their own, to this understanding.
Didn’t a recent report suggest that El Nino events were more likely in a warmer climate. It doesn’t take a huge leap of the imagination to see what the next claim of the IPCC will be. CO2 causes more El Nino’s due to its heating effect which then causes more warming, end result CO2 indirectly caused all of the warming.
While I think the science here is interesting, modeling the quantitative effects of the atmosphere has been very unreliable to date so i’m skeptical about the exact figures. It also assumes that the CO2 is the cause of non ENSO warming rather than just stating half of the warming caused by ENSO, which shows a biased premise on which the paper was undertaken.
Roy Spencer says:
November 11, 2013 at 11:47 am
…and we don’t claim this study gets “the answer”. As others have suggested, it might well be there are other climate forcings we have not included. We just examined how inclduing ENSO as a pseudo-forcing reduces estimated future warming by 50%.
Gee, if only ENSO can do that, what about the AMO, or indirect solar effects, or ??? ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.
This is the most important part of everything you said Roy.
ENSO is simply one component, a paper that establishes AMO and Solar as well could drop the C02 sensitivity even further.
Wouldn’t that be a kick in the guts..
Having re discovered the 60 year cycle perhaps Roy and the rest of academia will one day rediscover Lambs 1000 year cycle . For a reasonable ,empirical, transparent cooling forecast based on the recent peak being a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles see several posts including the last one at ..
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here’s a summary of the conclusions for the NH and Global temperatures . I would be interested to see Roy’s estimates for similar future dates,
“In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario”
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
.
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase in summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
SOLAR CLIMATE MECHANISMS AND CLIMATE PREDICTION
MECHANISM ONE
.
One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:
A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic , releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.
This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.
This makes much sense to me.
NAO= NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
NADW= NORTH ATLANTIC DEEP WATER
To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength , the MUCH greater the reduction.
UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.
This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea , were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.
Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.0) , due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.
This could then set up a more -NAO ,(high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.
MECHANISM TWO
A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.
Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.
MECHANISM THREE
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter(highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.
In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.
MECHANISM FOUR
High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.
One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain
volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the
magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.
Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.
These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units(or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought , and that the
climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in
the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR)
bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
I’ll bet the actual sensitivity to CO2 is even less than this once UHI and land use changes get a better accounting.
I.m with Bastardi here and also better to put up AMO/solar/temp graphs that are actually updated to at least 2012, 1999 is way out date thanks.
DonV says:
November 11, 2013 at 11:42 am
“… Dr. Spencer, was the pending publication of this article why you were so unnecessarily hard on Willis theory recently?”
The denigration all non-professional efforts? That was some outrageous crap.
One simple but important question that must be reconciled is, if CO2 drives the temperature why is it that CO2 follows the temperature rather then lead it.
Therefore due to the above ,it stands to reason CO2 cannot be the cause for the climate change to change.
If you include the obvious 1000 year cycle contribution to the 20th century temperature rise the CO2 sensitivity is too small to distinguish from the natural cycles.
BTW when are we going to see October 2013 UHA Temp data graphs? Always thank you Dr Spencer for your efforts there…
60 yr cycle in HadSST3 30 year rate warming:-
http://tinypic.com/r/242sqko/5
Significant increase in the max rate of warming the peaks of 1880s and 1940s but very little change between the 1940s and 2000s peaks? Should be interesting to see at what level the next trough forms?
Stephen Wilde says:
Actually it is the gas constant which governs the behaviour of water too.
I agree if all that mattered was water as a “gas” in our atmosphere. But your explanation is severely limited because of one simple fact. Water is not present in our atmosphere as just a gas! FAR FROM IT.
Water is THE ONLY UNIQUE MOLECULE that is present in the atmosphere in ALL THREE STATES OF MATTER (and may even be present in its own unique fourth state as a liquid crystal). That fact all by itself changes everything. Why? Because at each phase change in the atmosphere, water either must absorb are release latent heat to obey the laws of physics. And that ALL BY ITSELF makes water the dominant molecule in regulating thermal balance. Water can all by itself, absorb more energy, transport more energy, over longer distances, packaged in a condensed phase, then release that energy to cool the earth off where it needs cooling, or maintain temperature stasis where it is cooler.
Your assertion that the gas constant governs water may be true about water in its gaseous form, but fails to include the most important piece of the puzzle – PHASE CHANGE in the atmosphere. The gas constant does not include or comprehend liquid or solid water contributing to the energy balance. Nowhere in PV = nRT does it include “and then it changes phase and is no longer bound by this equation”.
I have read your climate theory essays. I don’t know about the links of solar radiation to ozone to latitudinal shift in jet streams to long term heating and cooling . . . . that all may be true and may explain the tenths of a degree long term drifts in annual temps. . . . but over the short term AND long term the regulating molecule that keeps life bearable down here where we live is WATER in all it’s life promoting forms.
Roy, if your are suspicious of the accuracy of the ocean temperature data, why do simulations on data whose veracity you do not fully accept?
You may have come to approximately the right conclusion, however. Bruce
more soylent green! says:
November 11, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I’ll bet the actual sensitivity to CO2 is even less than this once UHI and land use changes get a better accounting.
###########
wrong. Even if UHI explained 50% of land warming it would not change sensitivity that much as land is only 30% of the total.
the biggest issue is that Roy hasnt estimated ECS, he has estimate TCR.
a 1.3C TCR translates into a 2.6C ECS.. thereabouts
“The results also suggest the world will warm by 1.3 C (about 2.34° F) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which is only one-half of the warming expected by most climate researchers.”
New model factor = 0.5
Some time in the future…
New model factor = 0.25
Some time in the far future…
New model factor = 0.125
(I wonder if all the climate “modelers” will get it….)
“Basically, a portion of El Nino warming is radiatively forced, probably due to a decrease in low clouds allowing more sunlight in”
Is there any evidence that the decrease in low clouds is caused by an increase in sun spots as per Svensmark?
Hey, guys, Dr. Spencer never said he and Dr. Braswell had come up with the Unified Field Theory. They’ve accomplished the feat of getting published a study that is not congenial to the climate establishment. Kudos is in order.
That said, it seems to me that for a study of this type (one-dimensional first- or second-order model with a scalar response and a small-vector stimulus) it would not be arduous to publish the complete data and code so that we can see for ourselves exactly how closely his actual work matches his verbal description of it.
I hasten to add that I don’t think for a moment he even considered misrepresenting what he did. But latent ambiguities are almost unavoidable in this type of thing; it was only by his placing the spreadsheet on the web several years back, for example, that I was certain what he meant by his “simple model,” and I’m sure that others’ understanding of this current work will benefit from an exhaustive disclosure.
jim
‘Roy does not go far enough. We can take into account all natural forcings by noting that Beenstock et al and Mora et al have shown that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. So it follows that there is a strong indication that the CS of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.”
1. Beenstock have shown no such thing.
2. CS for C02 cannot be zero or close to zero
Roy Spencer says: “ENSO just happened to be the most obvious signal in the globally averaged ocean temperature data at various depths, so we started with it.”
Thanks. That answered my question (Roy, how did your model account for the other major mode of natural variability, the AMO?).
Regards.