From the way media and climate scientists portray the global air temperature this past year, you’d think there was only one place to go – up. For example, Gavin is holding on to hope:
With update thru September, ~80% chance of 2017 being 2nd warmest yr in the GISTEMP analysis (~20% for 3rd warmest). pic.twitter.com/k3CEM9rGHY
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) October 17, 2017
Next year will be interesting.
However, oceans rule the temperature of the planet, and as this most recent SST shows, there’s a lot of cool water and a clear signature of La Niña shaping up off the coast of South America:
Source: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
Ron Clutz of Science Matters writes:
September Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are now available, and we see downward spikes in ocean temps everywhere, led by sharp decreases in the Tropics and SH, reversing the bump upward last month. The Tropical cooling in particular factors into forecasters favoring an unusually late La Nina appearance in coming months.
HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source, the latest version being HadSST3.
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST3 starting in 2015 through September 2017.
The August bump upward was overcome with the Global average matching the lowest level in the chart at February 2015. September NH temps almost erased a three-month climb; even so 9/2017 is well below the previous two years. Meanwhile SH and the Tropics are setting new lows for this period. With current reports from the El Nino 3.4 grid sector, it seems likely October will go even lower, with downward moves across all oceans.
Note that higher temps in 2015 and 2016 were first of all due to a sharp rise in Tropical SST, beginning in March 2015, peaking in January 2016, and steadily declining back to its beginning level. Secondly, the Northern Hemisphere added two bumps on the shoulders of Tropical warming, with peaks in August of each year. Also, note that the global release of heat was not dramatic, due to the Southern Hemisphere offsetting the Northern one. […]
Summary
We have seen lots of claims about the temperature records for 2016 and 2015 proving dangerous man made warming. At least one senator stated that in a confirmation hearing. Yet HadSST3 data for the last two years show how obvious is the ocean’s governing of global average temperatures.
I still don’t believe that back in 1900 they had anywhere near the precise, accurate data they needed to determine the temperature of the oceans.
La Niña develops because surface water, which is warm, gets wind-blown shoved westward and then mixed in elsewhere as it rides the choppy surface and undercurrents. El Niño develops because winds change that allows the surface water, which is warm, to relax back across the surface and layer up with warm water on the top. So, heating up or cooling down can be just the allusionary outcome of different mixing conditions while total global ocean heat remains balanced. However, the ice cores tell us that there are long term severe swings. That said, there is no way to measure balance or imbalance, yet, in incremental total increase or decrease in ocean heat content. Plus, no one lives long enough, nor their stored data to know what slope they are on. The next ice age will remove all our stored data and we will eventually repeat the unknowing scare that the world is ending because it is too cold or too hot and we are to blame.
If there is one thing we can count on it is this: humans never learn. They still make ludicrous decisions based on their limited knowledge that only extends to the end of their noses. It is just that their implements change that support their notions.
Algore will say massive increase in hurricanes sucking heat out of the oceans
But he’ll charge for it and make it sound boring. And that, my friend, is the Al Gore magic!
“We have seen lots of claims about the temperature records for 2016 and 2015 proving dangerous man made warming. ”
Ah no. Nobody argues that the records PROVE.. DANGEROUS man made warming.
here is what we expect.
1. If we continue to dump c02, we expect temperature to generally increase,
not every year, not monotonically, but over LONG PERIODS we expect them
to go up.
2. How much? How much depends on several things.
a) the amount of c02 and methane and other ghgs we admit.
b) the amount and kind of land use changes we see
c) the frequency and severity of volcanoes
d) if we hold everything else equal, then we expect between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming
for a doubling of c02, OVER THE LONG TERM
3. Over the short term we do NOT expect every year to set a record,
we expect variability, some colder years, some warmer years, even streches
of no warming or slight cooling.
4. DANGEROUS warming is in the future, and here there is room for debate
how much danger? who will suffer most? who may even benefit. As the
IPCC explains there will be winners and losers.
If you draw a cartoon of the science ( as journalists and skeptics do) then its easy to be confused
4.5C???? That’s batsh*t crazy.
October 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Social scientist and author Steven Mosher called the global warming movement an enemy of the sanctity of innocent human life at an international symposium that began online Tuesday to address the anti-Christian nature of population control.
Mosher, long recognized as an expert in China’s domestic policy, started his address by explaining that the earth’s temperature has always fluctuated, sometimes dramatically.
“I did a historical study of climate change in China, which shows that the climate in China 2,000 years ago was several degrees warmer than it is today,” Mosher said, adding, “And of course that was a long time before we started hearing about climate change and global warming.”
Mosh seems to forget that during the ice ages…
When CO2 concentrations are high, the world cools into a glacial era.
When CO2 concentrations are low, the world warms into an interglacial.
How does that happen, Mosh, if Co2 can cause 4.5 deg c per doubling?
Admit it – the effects of CO2 have been highly exaggerated.
Ralph
Mosh seems to forget that the signature of increasing greenhouse warming, is increasing downwelling longwave radiation. It is DLR that warms the surface, and it is easy enough to detect.
But an increase in DLR has never been detected. Ergo, whatever warming the globe has experienced, has not been the result of greenhouse gasses.
Ralph
Yup, downwelling radiation was reported in Gero/Turner 2012 over the period 1997 – 2011. They found it was holding steady or decreasing.
If climate science was a real science we would have seen a few dozen sites around the world created to measure this and determine if this was a global phenomena. That this didn’t happen is absolute proof there is no such thing as climate science.
The range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling is based on two WAGs from the 1970s, the higher of which was by the astronomical Dr. Hansen. No actual scientific observation supports that high of a range. Hence, no evidence in favor of possibly dangerous future consequences. More CO2 is all good.
The real range is around the lab observed figure of 1.2 degrees C per doubling. What happens in the real climate system isn’t known, but the best estimates are something like 0.6 to 1.8 degrees C. Net negative feedbacks are more likely than positive, on our homeostatic water world.
Poor Mosh.. still pushing the same old used lemon.
There is NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite data sets.
There is NO CO2 warming signal in sea level
There is NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE.
It just DOESN’T EXIST except in models and purposely adjusted data (GISS, BEST etc)
The whole premise of CO2 warming is an unproven load of malarkey !!
Cartoons is ALL you have, Mosh.
I suspect several, people inside his cranium.
And he’d lucky if even one of them had any self-respect left.
Typical Progressive Taliban position… Declare something that suits your agenda to be “sacred” and thus “beyond question”, THEN start to discuss it’s implications and what to do about them. VERY CONVENIENT!
“Compromise” to a Progressive means negotiating the various ways to ultimately promote the Progressive agenda. How convenient!
“…Ah no. Nobody argues that the records PROVE.. DANGEROUS man made warming…”
Plenty of politicians, activists, and brain-washed members of the general public do. Why aren’t the climate scientists out there correcting them? Why aren’t you (not as a climate scientist, of course)?
Please explain how the small fraction of the (already puny) .0004 atmospheric C02 budget (that is reckoned to be human-made) can have anywhere near such a powerful effect. Especially considering that it competes with H2O in trying to absorb the two limited bandwidths of reflected solar radiation that it can “capture.” Given that the H2O to CO2 ratio is about 19:1 it seems a mighty stretch. Then please comment on the work done that demonstrates CO2’s logarithmic (and not linear) effect which displays diminishing returns for contributing to atmospheric heating and the eventual flat-lining of its effect (as logarithmic contributions do.) Does this effect not comport better with the real world observations, or at least come MUCH closer than those historically unforgivable wastes of billions of dollars, known as climate models?!
Steven,
Whilst ever there is an abnormally high level of CO2 in the air, your hypotheses claim this will generate extra warmth. If you claim this display of warmth is erratic, you have to have a hypothesis to explain where it resides during a short term low. Then, if you have a candidate you have to measure whether it has the physics to handle that much warmth, then you have to produce numbers, with uncertainty bounds, to show it is a plausible mechanism.
So, where is warmth stored when it is erratically cool and where is cool stored when it is erratically hot? Do the thermodynamics balance? Are measurement errors low enough to tell? Geoff
YOU ARE DREAMING Mosh
I Irrelevant
P People
C Creating
C Chaos
There is no consensus and no proof that so called GHG will warm the world beyond natural variations.
The activist scientists argued that action had to be taken because of the precautionary principle in case they were right .They used dodgy methods and manipulated temperature records to suit their purpose .The politicians accepted the argument because they were told that 2500 scientists can’t be wrong and 97%of climate scientists believed in CAGW .
“1. If we continue to dump c02, we expect temperature to generally increase,”
Increasing CO2 concentration will only shorten the path of a very minor wavelength from maybe 10 meters to 9 meters in the atmosphere (if there is no water vapour in that area). This is what physically happens. This does not automatically translate into general temperature increase.
This physical process including the heat transfer through the air column is not build in the models. Models work with a simplified version where a certain backradiation is supposed to appear at the top of the atmosphere thought to replace the whole physical process.
Is this substitution valid?
“2. How much? How much depends on several things.”
First how valid is this substitution? I doubt it has any real value, over the history we see that temperature can decrease when CO2 is high, therefore CO2 is not a main driver of temperature. The ocean currents and continental setup + solar influence seem to be main drivers
What other influences is CO2 having?
– reduces desertification – plant can withstand more drought
– increases C3 plants metabolism
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
=> about 15% to 20% of increased food production for CO2 increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. ABout 40% increased food production for CO2 increase from 180 ppm to 400 ppm.
Without the additional CO2 we would be starving.
From https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/climate-change-alarmists-disregard-sanctity-of-human-life-population-expert
… The bestselling author, who went through a Ph.D program in Oceanography at the University of Washington, further noted that during the Jurassic period, the earth was 15 degrees warmer on average than it is today.
Mosher, who received the Blessed Frederic Ozanam award from the Society of Catholic Social Scientists for “exemplifying the ideal of Catholic social action,” mentioned that meteorologist Anthony Watts has tallied government payouts related to global warming. Watts estimates $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion are “tied up in the climate hoax.”
Mosher criticized Ehrlich for his extremist view of population growth and for “comparing it to a cancerous growth. I can hardly imagine a more derogatory description of the human family than comparing it to a cancer cell,” Mosher said.
“When my wife and I had nine children, we didn’t think that they resembled cancer cells. We thought that we were new souls into existence, cooperating with God in populating this world and hopefully in the next,” Mosher commented.
Not „Mosh“!
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure if Mosh had finally seen the light, or if it was his skeptical twin declaring the truth. :>)
I for one commend Steven Mosher for speaking up on behalf of the family and of humanity. The world cannot be made better by removing love and family from it.
Thank you Steven!
Mosher writes
Future warming isn’t dangerous with a question of how dangerous. Not all change is dangerous. Future warming is likely and the result could be anywhere from very dangerous to very beneficial.
Data schmeta, nothing the Mann adjustment bureau can’t fix
I have been looking at this SST web page, daily for about as long as it has been on the internet.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif
Is it outdated or incorrect?
The NOAA imagery in the article shows SST Anomalies. So no, your SST map is not necessarily outdated or incorrect.
Graphical depiction of Sea Surface Temperature gridded products. Contour charts are used to depict both global and regional SST values in various grid spacing.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global.c.gif
I find this one easier to read, esp when looking for the shape of the temp gradient.
http://www.amssm.org/a_31_yearold_runner_with-a-csa-160.html
Hmm. Paste failed entirely. Sorry.
Global temperatures have been going down since February 2016 when the big 2014-16 El Niño peaked. The cooling has been so slow that after a year and a half they are still at the level of mid-2015, so it is cooling at less than half the rate of the previous El Niño warming.
It will be quite a long time before this cooling is a problem for the AGW hypothesis, as so far some cooling after the El Niño is to be expected. Perhaps by 2020 if the cooling continues that long and we are back to 2013 temperatures.
Those are fake “data”.
But, yes, the lower troposphere does seem to be cooling somewhat more slowly than after the 1999 Super El Nino.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2017_v6-550×317.jpg
There were minor El Nino conditions from Mayish to July and there is a two month lag with the troposphere temperature I believe. The flip to La Nina should start showing up with this month’s data.
Just on the basis of Sept being anomalously warm, I expect a cooler October. But Earth is always full of surprises.
The Arctic ocean has had a relatively large extent of open water for the last few years and has subsequently dumped a great deal of heat. The water temps are now sufficiently low that seasonal ice extents are growing. This growth will continue for at least the next 10 years, with the Arctic climate reverting from a marine (warmer) dominated condition to a colder, drier dominance. This colder Arctic will profoundly effect temps and precipitation across the Northern Hemisphere. The AGW hypothesis is going to freeze to death, but we can’t be complacent about this. They have demonstrated that they will use any extent of false witness to advance their eco-Socialist cause.
AGW is not science, it is politics!
We are headed for 1960’s type weather in the NH, until the Arctic ocean builds up enough heat to create a new open water paradigm. Probably 30-40 years from now.
Good thing you know what future climate is going to be several decades in advance. Keep that crystal ball clean.
Over the years I have seen numerous skeptics predicting a serious cooling around the corner and failing, so yes, I am skeptic of that too. I only believe what I see in the evidence. Less warming than promised, but no cooling so far. And the future continues being unknown to all.
Javier,
IMO we can pretty safely predict that Earth will be cooler in the future than now. I believe that your estimate for the next glacial advance is around 3000 years. Others, who think that orbital eccentricity rules, say not for some 30,000 or more years.
But, you’re right. No one can say with any confidence that Earth will be cooler 30 years from now than it is presently.
But IMO that’s the way to bet, given climate history.
Javier +1
I’d like to point out upwelling does not make joules disappear, it just hides them for a while. On the contrary. But warming means warmer baseline to start El Ninos.
Agree with John we could have Arctic refreezing, but while it makes Wadhams more and more laughable, it does not nail the coffin of agw.
Hugs,
IMO growing Arctic sea ice will help end the AGW madness. Gore always asks what else could be causing the decline. If there is no more decline, one of the most visible examples of putative GHE is gone.
Gabro,
Yes, and warmer too. But without getting the timing right it is quite irrelevant.
I guess most people don’t get a clear grasp of the temporal scale of climate changes, since our lives are so short within the geological scale. The Roman “peak” lasted several centuries, and the Medieval “peak,” that was shorter, lasted one to two centuries. We may have not reached yet the Modern “peak” that could very well last a few centuries too.
Those awaiting a sudden profound cooling LIA-style might as well be waiting for the second coming of Jesus in practical terms. The LIA was a pretty unique event in the Holocene, and the Holocene is a very long period in human terms. Our entire history since writing was invented fits comfortably in the second half of the Holocene. The 2400-year solar cycle fits half of our history within one oscillation. That’s about 100 human generations right there. According to paleoclimatology, the conditions for an important cooling within our lifetime are simply not there, and it makes me very happy to think so. Barring very strong volcanic activity or an asteroid hit we are probably looking at a long period of general climatic stability with multidecadal oscillations of the order seen in the second half of the 20th century (1950-75 cooling, 1976-2003 warming).
In political terms the best people here can hope for is lack of progress in global warming for the next couple of decades. For some, a cold, snowy Northern Hemisphere 2017-18 winter that furthers the temperature decline seen since Feb 2016 might be enough. Those that like skiing might be readying for a better than average season.
And we always have to be aware that future climate and weather remains unknown, for us as much as for 97% of climate scientists. We just have possibilities.
Javier,
I agree that it’s probably too soon for another LIA.
However, the LIA wasn’t unique. It might or might not have been the coldest such interval in the Holocene, but it was preceded by other similar cool periods in between the warm cycles.
The long-term trend however is down. The Current Warm Period hasn’t yet reversed the cooling trend since at least the Minoan WP. So far, as you note, subsequent WPs have been less warm than the preceding ones at roughly 1000-year peak intervals.
i agree with that javier, but a similar period to that of the 1950 to 1975 period would surely be multiple nails in the cagw coffin ? now we are past the peak of the amo the northern hemisphere should surely see some cooling over the next two decades along with an increase in arctic ice for the reasons mentioned by john harmsworth. both would fly in the face of warmist propaganda.
There’s plenty of evidence for an approximately 60 year cyclicality. Fudged records don’t change the reality that the 30’s were probably just as hot as the 1985-95 period. We have had 18 years of no warming. Arctic ice is growing, it is cooling and will continue to do so. Arctic ice conditions control the lag that causes this cyclicality.
Javier writes
Especially when it comes to considerations of sea level rise.
My understanding of La Niña conditions are that Pacific SSTs decrease because sun-warmed surface water is blown toward the western side of the Pacific by strong trade winds, where the warm water piles up, storing heat. When the trade winds slacken, the piled-up warm water spreads out over the ocean surface again and radiates heat as an El Niño. The AGW part comes in when the GHG molecules in the atmosphere scatter that released ocean warmth, leading to the next step up in surface warming. During a positive PDO, dominant El Niños creates a ramp-up in warming (1910-45; 1975-2000). During a negative PDO a dominance of La Nina’s causes more heat to be stored in the ocean than released, so there is a hiatus or pause in the rise of global surface temperatures. If this summary of events is correct, ocean warming and cooling cycles are compatible with and do not disprove AGW theory. Rates of warming vary with ocean cycles, but overall a gradual surface and tropospheric warming occurs in response to more of the periodically released ocean heat being trapped by the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere. The summary above pertains mainly to the Pacific but of course the Atlantic has its own cycles. For example the currently cooling N Atlantic (increasingly negative AMO) may help Arctic sea ice to increase, reducing that positive warming feedback in the NH. If this interpretation of some of the interactions between ocean cycles and GHGs to cause AGW is wrong I would appreciate clarification from anyone willing to take the time.
There is a lot of water vapor (up to 40,000 ppm) in the air above the tropical Pacific, and other parts of it as well. Thus, a fourth molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules (400 v 300 ppm a century ago) has very little if any GHE.
It is also possible that net heat discharge darkens the globe allowing greater solar absorption. MIT published something about that in 2014. Inconveniently, Earth started to shine up again.
I look at it a bit differently currently. Antarctica in the winter pushes out very cold water in the winter that is extremely dense and sinks and later comes up somewhere. The thermocline keeps warm water and cold water apart, this has especially strong recently – some say it is because of the AGW but to me it is the cause of it. If this weakens and the cool water pushes through and starts to cool the surface, reducing water vapour and cooling the planet. Water vapour outclasses CO2 as a GHG by a extremely large margin which is why some climate scientists talk about feedback mechanisms which water vapour is the main feedback that when temperatures go up it will push water vapour into the atmosphere and therefore push temperatures up in a runaway style. Which isn’t how the world works otherwise Earth would be like Venus already. My understanding is El Nino’s are warmer water at the surface that releases more water vapour than normal which warms the planet, El Nina’s are cold water at the surface that releases less water vapour and cools the planet. I view it more as how much cold water is getting to the surface. This ocean dynamic is why we have been in an ice age for the past 2.6 million years. (should have put it here as a reply, not fast enough, by the time I wrote it there was already many above)
What is so special about the GHG effect? It’s much smaller than the translational kinetic energy that all gas molecules transmit through the atmosphere from heating at the surface as well as adiabatic processes within the atmosphere. So therefore your statement about “The AGW part comes in when the GHG molecules in the atmosphere scatter that released ocean warmth” is narrow and misses the multitude of thermodynamic processes operating, and in a complex system like climate you can not simply isolate one variable. The major factor in ENSO related heating and cooling is the cirrus cloud anomalies and relative humidity anomaly during such events, not how much CO2 is present in the column of air above the outgoing radiation.
https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/nino-nina
As mentioned, this is all conjecture and hypothesis. We had no way to accurately know anything about air or water temperatures a hundred or more years ago and we know current data is fudged to make whoever is paying for the information a bit happier. The hottest weather in our lifetimes (if you are quite old) was back in the 1930’s. We have never seen it that hot since those times. All said, a bit of warming would be better for food production around the globe and it would allow our Canadian friends to perhaps start their migration to the south start a bit later and they could return a bit earlier – good for Canada – bad for USA GDP. LOL.
I live in central Maine and we’ve got enough cold as it is. I would like some global warming, man-made or natural.
More inconvenient truth flying in the face of the awarding of a certain Nobel [Junk] Science Prize.
Who cares? All of this has no effect on my life whatsoever. It’s all just a political distraction.
Before I went into the military, my dad gave several bits of advice that proved totally correct all my life. One of them was, “When the government builds a bandwagon and invites you to jump on, run as far away as you can before it goes over a cliff.” The government is always wrong. Once they jumped on human-caused global warming and actually refused to hire people who didn’t believe in it, I knew it was a lie. I didn’t need fancy charts or measurements. It was a lie on its face. Here’s what’s going to happen: the climate will stabilize or grow cooler and the Al Gores of the world will claim victory. Historians in the future will compare this hysteria to how humans tried to protect themselves from the black plague, with their Halloween masks, incense, animal sacrifices, and the rest. You can’t go wrong betting against the government.
Your father was a smart man. He didn’t happen to say anything about how to fix government, did he?
Global Temps use Mean , not Max. If they showed both Tmin and Tmax, they couldn’t scare anyone since invariably it is Tmin climbing much faster than Tmax and that is the UHI.signature.
https://sunshinehours.net/2017/10/28/national-post-tries-to-scare-canadians-and-fails-if-you-look-carefully/
Good point, which bears repeating.
And to the extent that there has been any open area warming, it’s higher lows in winter and at night. If the North Pole be two degrees warmer in its sunless winter, averaging, say, -32 instead of -34 C, it would have no climatic effect.
The one place on earth where more CO2 should have an effect is the high, dry polar desert of the South Pole, but there has been no warming there for as long as records have been kept.
There is another dry cold place where CO2 is showing an effect. Glaciers.
“The one place on earth where more CO2 should have an effect is the high, dry polar desert of the South Pole, but there has been no warming there for as long as records have been kept.”
Gabro:
Another man-made contribution to our atmosphere is at work over Antarctica, DEPLETING another GHG – O3, (Ozone) in the stratosphere.
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/ngeo1296
“The radiative forcing of the near-surface temperature gradient
is straightforward. Stratospheric ozone depletion is accompanied
by a reduction in downwelling longwave radiation through the
polar tropopause, and thus cooling in the polar troposphere and
an increase in the north–south temperature gradient near 60°S.
and…
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nclimate2235
“We find that the SAM has undergone a progressive shift towards its positive phase since the fifteenth century, causing cooling of the main Antarctic continent at the same time that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed.”
Javier,
Please explain how you suppose that CO2 affects glaciers. Thanks.
If it does, then they all should be behaving the same, but they aren’t. Some are growing, some are staying the same and some are retreating, although no faster than previously since the end of the LiA. Local conditions far outweigh any possible effect from a fourth molecule of CO2 in 10,000 dry air molecules, added over the past century.
Toneb,
Clearly the fluctuating ozone hole has had no effect, since it has waxed and waned, while CO2 has steadily increased, yet the temperature at the South Pole has stayed the same.
It’s also by no means clear that the ozone hole is entirely or at all anthropogenic in origin. Solar UV output varies enormously, especially in the highest energies which make and break ozone.
Fluctuations of ozone levels thus might well be mainly from natural variation, not man-made chemicals.
anyone that thinks the ozone hole over antarctica is caused by human activity is a complete lunatic.
One of the largest glacier fields on Earth is growing, with other smaller ones, too, of course.
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/08/14/scientists-karakoram-glaciers-growing-spite-global-warming/
I see zero CO2 signature in growth of glaciers in the 21st century v 20th or 19th century. But then my rice bowl isn’t dependent on CO2 warming.
i think the extrapolating algorerithms spreading uhi from over 1000km away in some cases may have a part to play as well. the majority of the increase in the northern hemisphere is due to the arctic warming. lets face it if there is anywhere outside antarctica on the planet that could use some warming it is the arctic.
Arctic warming is cyclical and arises as a consequence of open water. Check out the mean temp chart on the sea ice page for above 80 degrees N
It shows clearly that recent temps are much warmer than the older mean. This is best understood as the presence of a more marine environment as a result of low ice conditions. This massive heat dump by the Arctic ocean is the cause of most of our recent warming. That phase of the cycle is nearly complete. The Arctic ocean has cooled and the ice is growing. The Northern Hemisphere will now cool.
The Southern Hemisphere does it’s own thing, remaining a frigid island continent surrounded by ocean.
The backdrop for all this is a small continuing warming as we recovery from the LIA. That probably has to do with long term ocean currents. And the backdrop for that is our position in the longer term interglacial. which is just about the only climactic issue we really have.
And what’s that danger Mr Congressman? No more danger than we’ve had to endure since forever. Problem is more and more people and structures are getting in the way of Ma Nature, and so it goes.
I look at it a bit differently currently. Antarctica in the winter pushes out very cold water in the winter that is extremely dense and sinks and later comes up somewhere. The thermocline keeps warm water and cold water apart, this has especially strong recently – some say it is because of the AGW but to me it is the cause of it. If this weakens and the cool water pushes through and starts to cool the surface, reducing water vapour and cooling the planet. Water vapour outclasses CO2 as a GHG by a extremely large margin which is why some climate scientists talk about feedback mechanisms which water vapour is the main feedback that when temperatures go up it will push water vapour into the atmosphere and therefore push temperatures up in a runaway style. Which isn’t how the world works otherwise Earth would be like Venus already. My understanding is El Nino’s are warmer water at the surface that releases more water vapour than normal which warms the planet, El Nina’s are cold water at the surface that releases less water vapour and cools the planet. I view it more as how much cold water is getting to the surface. This ocean dynamic is why we have been in an ice age for the past 2.6 million years.
The Cenozoic Ice Age began about 34 million years ago, with build up of ice sheets on Antarctica, thanks to its separation by deep ocean channels from South America and Australia, ie the creation of the Southern Ocean.
This ice age spread to the Northern Hemisphere some 2.6 Ma, after North and South America were connected by the Isthmus of Panama, interrupting tropical oceanic circulation.
Trying to scare Canadians with nice summers and mild winters! That’s rich!
First off, Oceans do NOT rule the temperature of this planet. The Sun does and oceans can only moderate to some degree what the Sun does. The Maunder Minimum is back, which is a completely cyclic event. Add to that the Saturn & Jupiter are on the same side of the the Solar System (not the norm) and that is pulling earth further out away from the cooling sun. We are going into a mini Ice Age. The Russians think that this could last for several hundred years. And it if you have not been paying attention to the BS our of the Controlled Science, that cooling has already started … with significant crop losses last year in the US, which will only increase rather quickly in the coming years. Made made Global Warming is a Hoax put out for idiots by criminals (Gore included). Look back at the art of the1600s and you’ll notice how heavily everyone dressed to stay warm and all the days were rather dark/cloudy/cold. Get ready. That time is coming again. Ramifications? Less food globally and that means far few people can be supported, i.e. billions. Best to be at/near or below 30 degrees. In the US, that is only 2 states.
Gore bought a million plus dollar beach house. I don’t think he really believes the oceans will rise.
Follow the money. MMGW and Carbon Credits are tools to modify the global economy. They transfer wealth to less prosperous nations, and the very prosperous China.
We are heading into a cycle of lower solar output. What I haven’t seen mapped to the problem is the inclination of the Earth’s axis. And the axis perturbation rate. Or the magnetic field strengths across the globe. From those you can model the impact of solar output a touch better, but the model gains complexity as you have to determine UV bands intensities of the solar output to model upper atmospheric ozone and then the effects on albedo.
I think the total upper limit of the earths atmospheric temperature is bound by the volume of water on this planet. As ice caps melt, liquid water increases. Given the assumption that the solar input is relatively constant, the impact of said energy input has decreasing impact on the ocean temperature as more liquid water is added. At some point, the amount of solar energy is not sufficient to replace the outgoing energy, even under clear skies and full insolation. Throw in a cloud or two, a volcanic eruption, and cooling begins to take place. The inertia of the system insures that it continues to cool, or warm, depending on the direction. At some point, the oceans are at a negative, and begin to store heat again, reversing the system ….. and it goes back and forth, and temp up and down.
I don’t think the modelers have considered this aspect of climate. A said energy can only have so much effect on a certain volume of media. The direction can be changed in two ways, changing the energy source, or changing the volume of the media. Melting ice caps change the volume of the media.
Just an interesting thought.
It’s not just fluctuations in solar output that matters, but Earth’s orientation toward the incoming radiation and magnetic flux.
NH ice sheets melt when Earth is titled so as increase felt insolation. Meltwater pulses cool the oceans, interrupting deglaciation, put also their effect doesn’t last long. Maybe a millennium at most, like the Younger Dryas.
The Northern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet is too far north to be much affected even at tilt angles most favorable for melting. The Southern Dome is more vulnerable and can melt if an interglacial lasts long enough and gets warm enough. During the longer, warmer Eemian, it melted about 25% more than it has so far in the Holocene.
CO2 had practically no effect, except possibly as a feedback mechanism when warmer seas release more of it to the air.
“Given the assumption that the solar input is relatively constant” — False assumption. NOTHING but NOTHING is constant. Anything & Everything can & will change and that includes the sun, which is NOT a solar furnace as we’ve been FALSELY told. The sun is a ferrite/copper rock that is hurling through space a near 70,000K/second and pulling us along behind it. Space in front of the Sun is NO vacuum, only behind it because it is in essence leading us through this rather dense material in space and the interaction is like a Tig Welding tip. And the Sun is in the process of cooling from around 5,000K to around 3,000K. The material in front of the Sun is NOT constant either and It’s believed that we are going through more dense material than in the 1940s-1990s. Bottom line: NOTHING is permanent. And our knowledge about our existence is NO where near as complete as the powers that be would like us to think. The earth is going through some rather significant changes right now internally with the causality being rather complex and the sources are most likely interplanetary, not just the earth by itself. The most primitive form of rational is anthropomorphic which puts man at the center of everything, when in essence, man is rather insignificant, if not down right Stupid.
All this sientific stuff is great, but aren’t we all required by law to follow the thoughts and opinion of our great Climate Leadership team headed by Al Gore?
All governments are inherently a Criminal Enterprise by necessity, without exception! — Jordan Maxwell.
So are you going to follow/comply with Criminals? Our Founding Fathers had a different idea and warned us, but we’ve fallen down and lost control to this Criminal Federal Monster embodied by the Illuminati’s Federal Reserve & CIA, which they both created and run. Their IRS is just the FED’s collection agency. And As Eisenhower warned us in 1960, their Military Industrial Complex has completely taken over the Pentagon, which has ripped us OFF for many Trillions, giving us an almost constant state of WAR, which keeps their coffers full! Over 900 US military bases in over 150 countries is NOT defense. It’s Empire!
This year in Antarctica there is now more ice than a year ago.
I should hope so!
Last year was off the scale low in November and December, due to two weather events.
According to NOAA, it’s in the normal range and headed for the 1981-2010 median:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/last:360/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/last:360/mean:25/offset
Hadley Centre “data” are fake.
what a joke
Yep, Hadley, GISSSSS.
WHAT A JOKE they are !!
Gabro
Yet this is the very data set used by the author of the above article to proclaim that global cooling has begun.
What way does this work exactly? Where a data set shows cooling we should accept it without question; but where the very same data set shows warming we should regard the entire set as “fake”? That doesn’t really work, logically. It lacks any kind of consistency.
Another thing: if *they* are faking the data to make it look like there’s continued global warming, then why have they introduced a cooling trend since Feb 2016? If it’s fake they could simply brush the cooling out. Why are the ‘warmists’ faking cool data?
Two things:
How long does it have to cook and I’m having trouble measuring .2 degrees.
“With update thru September, ~80% chance of 2017 being 2nd warmest yr in the GISTEMP analysis (~20% for 3rd warmest).”
Only 2nd warmest? I thought every successive year was supposed to be the hottest evah!
Most will never admit it if a lot of the “science” and “facts” about “global warming” turn out to be a bunch of bologna. Severe cerebral narcissists with a constant snide attitude towards anyone who does not blindly believe as they do. But this reveals that they are the ones who are so desperately terrified of being mere fallible mortals, capable of having wrong guesses or needing to ever adapt their perceptions. They regard it as some horrific and shameful thing to be demonized and aggressively ridiculed. It’s really sad, they are trapped by their own warped fear of being human.
Put a cork in it you warming freaks….the oceans have spoken….LOL
Exactly!!
+10