ICCC-14 Preview, Ep. 4: Roy Spencer on “What Recent Ocean Warming Suggests About Future Warming”

The Heartland Institute

In our fourth in this series, streamed live on June 17, Roy Spencer, Ph.D., principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, gives a sneak peek of his presentation at The Heartland Institute’s 14th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-14) on Oct. 15-17 in Las Vegas. In this preview, Spencer discussed “What Recent Ocean Warming Suggests About Future Global Warming.”

The warming predicted by the latest climate models in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 averages close to 4C. Using an updated model – and even assuming all warming has been due to human activity – Spencer and a colleague suggest that future warming is likely to turn out much lower. In fact, even if we don’t reduce human carbon dioxide emissions, the world may still hit the United Nations’ stated goal of keeping warming at no more than 1.5C by the end of the century.

Get your tickets for the conference:

https://climateconference.heartland.org/

5 20 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chaswarnertoo
June 19, 2021 2:46 am

Those damn realistic projections. How do we keep climate hysteria up then?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 19, 2021 4:16 am

The MSM avoids discussing realistic projections- thus serving as climate hysteria Viagra. 🙂

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 19, 2021 1:27 pm

Hysteria amplified by Leftist Tears.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 19, 2021 4:38 pm

Now therein lies the real climate crisis, climate emergency, climate blah blah blah blah …..

Coeur de Lion
June 19, 2021 3:59 am

Do you think that the peak of the 2016 El Niño wil be THE HOTTEST EVAH and we will be continuing the Holocene decline hereafter?

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 19, 2021 7:39 am

No. The declined will be the natural cycic decline of c.1Ka period and 2 deg range with change at 0,8dec per century, as you see in the record. There will be another warm period around 3,000 AD.

Yes if you mean will this will be superimpised on the longer term ice age cycle, as the interglacial continues into the neo glacial, and as any casual inspection of the ice cores from either pole shows has been happening since 8Ka BP, when it was 2 deg warmer than now – but still 4 deg cooler than the prior strong interglacial, when Hippos, lions and Heffalumps roamed the banks of the Thames at 50 deg North..

Who new? Well, anyone who has actually studied Geological actual and proxy records, (bones and ice cores) because that’s what has happened.

nb:The LIA was the coldest temperature minimum for 8,000 years in the NH as least.

Not a lot of people know this. I did a poster on it for the IoP conference on change.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=3864144

PS There is a longer more boring description of the interglacial record and the cycles involved here, you can fast forward to the detail data slide descriptions, I simply add the direct readings to the GISP2 change and compare that to what we would expect if natural history repeats itself. No obvious difference is detectable, hence there is no detectable no AGW anomaly.:But only on the observations, the models predict differently and don’t agree with nature. Which should a scientist believe, the theory or the observations taken to test it?

58f69b3ba9

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Brian R Catt
June 19, 2021 1:29 pm

But what about Woosels?

Robertvd
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 21, 2021 9:22 am

And what do we know about the influence of the decreasing magnetic field on temperature ?

Sara
June 19, 2021 4:40 am

How about this concept: the only reason the world IS habitable for us right now, letting us live long and prosper as we do, IS DUE to global warming.

Then what is the complaint about?

Would they really prefer to return to another period of extreme cold?

Would all those Complainers and Doomsayers move to the few remaining warm spots and still whine about Global Warming?

Irony is not really my strong suit, but the hysterics involved in this endless and rather odd debate of “I’m RIGHT – you’re WRONG!!!” are getting really, really OLD.

Scissor
Reply to  Sara
June 19, 2021 5:42 am

Yes, it’s amazing that there are hysterical people marching against global warming who find themselves bundled up in coats, hats, gloves, etc. because it is so cold outside during their protests.

Their parades proclaiming the end of snow are frequently interrupted by snow itself, and they are too ignorant to realize that some huge percentage of mass of their shoes and clothing are products of fossil fuels.

Perhaps there should be a group that acknowledges what makes modern life possible. Call it Friday for Fossil Fuels (also Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday).

Last edited 4 months ago by Scissor
Robertvd
Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2021 9:10 am

Yep Greta hates Greta. She would love to have a mile of ice on top of Sweden again.
like Trudeau hates Canadians if he wants a colder climate in Canada.

leitmotif
June 19, 2021 4:53 am

ECS? Does it even exist? And if so, how do we measure it?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  leitmotif
June 19, 2021 6:26 am

The “equilibrium” part makes this unicorn science.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  leitmotif
June 19, 2021 6:27 am

Two possibilities:

A. It exists, but is equal to zero.

B. It doesn’t exist.

Either gets you to the right answer. ;-D

This of course is based on observations of the actual climate, including:

  1. No sensitivity to CO2 on geologic time scales, including (i) no “runaway greenhouse effect” with 7,000ppm CO2 and (2) a full blown ice age lasting millions of years with 4,000ppm CO2 and (iii) the highest temperature occurring with far less than the highest CO2 level.
  2. On shorter time scales, CO2 FOLLOWING temperature, up and down, with NO indication of the “immaculate contribution” that the propaganda pushers insists “must” be there (no increase in the rate of warming after the time lag is made up and BOTH temperature and CO2 are rising, REVERSE correlation at every inflection point where temperature stops cooling and starts warming or stops warming and starts cooling, and the fact that temperature consistently starts to RISE when CO2 is FALLING and near its LOW point, and consistently starts FALLING when CO2 is RISING and near its HIGH point, the combination of which should tell anyone capable of applying logic and reason that CO2’s influence is zero).
Gary Pearse
June 19, 2021 5:21 am

Thank you Roy Spencer for your fine post. Do nothing and we still wouldnt exceed the 1.5C. We, at peak population (we’re at 85% of it presently), will be enjoying world prosperity and plenty in “Garden of Eden Earth ^тм”. Mineral resources (contrary to cling-on-but-fading Malthusian beliefs, even among sceptics) are abundant. I have been thinking for some time of writing a post on this subject.

bonbon
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 19, 2021 5:40 am

Prince Charles’ Green New Deal fully intends a population reduction to what Sir John Schellnhuber often stated – 1 billion.
So the subject is population reduction, Eugenics on a scale far beyond most even dare to face .
CO2 is just the latest ploy.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  bonbon
June 19, 2021 6:07 am

He himself would be one of the first being told to leave.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bonbon
June 19, 2021 7:47 am

bonbon, speaking of Prince Charles:

“I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival” — Prince Charles’ speech at a Reception for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers, July 11, 2019

Note: July 11, 2019 + 18 months = mid-January 2021, so we passed that point-of-no-return about 5 months ago.

So, why are we still discussing anything related to statements about, or plans for, “climate change” from Charlie???

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 19, 2021 6:29 am

Further, that assumes CO2 even has any influence on the temperature “trends.”

June 19, 2021 5:34 am

Whatever happened to Schwarzschild’s curve which says that more CO2 will create no tangible warming because it’s greenhouse effect is asymptotically decreasing?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  John Shewchuk
June 19, 2021 6:09 am

But Schwarzschield was a brilliant physicist. That’s not a label I’d put on any climate modeller.

Ulric Lyons
June 19, 2021 6:18 am

Most of the rise in upper ocean heat content is from 1995 because of the warm AMO phase reducing low cloud cover, and a warm AMO phase is normal during a centennial solar minimum.

comment image

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
June 19, 2021 7:41 pm

Is that a graph of a weighted mean, or of a raw mean?

CO2isLife
June 19, 2021 6:47 am

Here is the problem. Water has the highest specific heat of all common materials. CO2 only affects H2O through 13 to 18 Micron LWIR. It takes enormous amounts of energy to maintain and warm the temperature of the oceans. That requires much more visible/warming reaching the oceans. Until someone can demonstrate that LWIR can actually warm water, the warming of the oceans is the greatest evidence CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming. Simply Google wavelength penetration of water. Only visible and especially Blue Light really penetrates the oceans. IR doesn’t penetrate water.

Reply to  CO2isLife
June 19, 2021 6:54 am

Light does not penetrate solids, but I still get warmer when the sun comes out.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  climanrecon
June 19, 2021 7:50 am

Just a minor point of contention about your statement: Light (in the visible portion of the EM spectrum) has no problem at all in penetrating solid window glass.

4caster
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 9:26 am

I recall from my Physical Meteorology class years ago that SI glass is actually a liquid. You can see the effects of gravity on sagging glass installed in buildings in the early and mid 19th century.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  4caster
June 19, 2021 9:38 am

Picky, picky, picky!

OK, then, there are numerous other examples, among the best being pure quartz, clear diamond and large salt crystals . . . and that’s just some of the non-colored minerals able to transmit light in the (human eye) visible range.

Greg
Reply to  4caster
June 19, 2021 10:21 am

It’s an amorphous solid, not a liquid.

danR
Reply to  4caster
June 19, 2021 11:52 am

“glass is actually a liquid!” was practically the definition of ‘trolling’, decades ago. I’m surprised it’s making a comeback.

Clowns would entice website n00bs into an argument over the matter, pummeling the poor victim (whether high-schooler or college grad) with a torrent of evidence and citations showing that glass was indeed a liquid, while fellow clowns would vociferously attack or defend the meme, the old-window-sagging-glass argument being only one of dozens of trusty tomfooleries.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  danR
June 19, 2021 5:43 pm

Many years ago I did courses in materials science, covering metals and alloys, ceramics and glasses, crystalline materials, plastics etc. I do recall that some of the properties of glass can be modelled as a very viscous liquid. Of course, when you heat it and blow it those properties become more important. Heat it enough and it melts altogether. Its structural properties when cooled depend on how well it was annealed after shaping. That and imperfections can lead to significant weakening. Glass cutting relies on the initial scoring creating a break in the structure that propagates easily when strained, like opening a zipper.

MarkW
Reply to  CO2isLife
June 19, 2021 8:30 am

LWIR does not warm water. However when the air gets warmer, the energy put into the water by SWIR has a harder time getting out, which causes the water to warm.

Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2021 9:55 am

What happens to the energy of the LWIR when it encounters water?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  climanrecon
June 19, 2021 11:06 am

It is reflected.

Dave Fair
Reply to  climanrecon
June 19, 2021 11:16 am

LWIR imparts its energy (minus any reflection) to whatever it impinges. The impinged material has extra energy to use in whatever manner the physics of the material and its surroundings require. If, as in the case of the oceans, the material is water then much of its surface energy release is through evaporation/convection and LWIR emission. [Here I am ignoring conduction to the atmosphere and deeper water and physical ocean overturning.]

If one asserts that all of the ocean-impinging LWIR energy is instantly converted to water vapor through evaporation, is that energy in addition to the upper-level energy in the ocean that would otherwise be evaporated away? Or would net evaporation stay the same as before the LWIR impingement, leaving the oceans warmer? I don’t know, but I do know the oceans are gaining energy from impinged LWIR to use in whatever manner it chooses consistent with the physics. And that is not a CliSciFi conspiracy.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 19, 2021 1:21 pm

Let’s say that in the paper-thin layer at the water surface that’s absorbing/reflecting all the IR, the average temperature is 30°C. There are molecules well above and well below that temperature, and let’s say that you need 100°C of horsepower to evaporate (I’m guessing). An 80° molecule that picks up the additional 20° from IR and evaporates, is not just taking the added IR energy with it, but also the whole 50° of energy it had above the average temperature. That drops the average, so it’s cooling the surface.

leitmotif
Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2021 1:08 pm

MarkW. Where is your evidence, FFS?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  leitmotif
June 19, 2021 1:38 pm

Fun Factual Science?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2021 12:50 am

LWIR does not warm water. However when the air gets warmer, the energy put into the water by SWIR has a harder time getting out, which causes the water to warm.

And yet, my pool warms when the sun shines, and does not when it’s cloudy, even when the air is the same temperature.

Magic!

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 6:51 am

Remember when the critical upper threshold temperature was 2.0 deg. C ?

They only lowered it down to 1.5 deg.C because we weren’t warming fast enough for it to be a crisis/emergency that requires urgent/Immediate political actions to address.

This proves that they will adjust the science so that it best meets the political objective.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 21, 2021 12:53 am

Remember when the historical average global temperature (as if such a thing could exist or make any sense) was 15C? And then it became 14C for some unexplained reason?

Pepperidge Farm remembers…

Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 7:41 am

I do believe that the major climate models comprising the periodic CMIP-x combined projections of ECS and thus future temperature trends will continue to be doomed to failure as long as they do not realize the ability of CO2 to absorb and thermalize LWIR from Earth’s surface in the lower 10 km of the atmosphere is now asymptotically-equivalent to total saturation, per W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer [2020] Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, free download available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098

That is, doubling the current concentration of CO2 increases its feedback forcing by only a few per cent.

S.K.
June 19, 2021 9:09 am
Dave Fair
Reply to  S.K.
June 19, 2021 11:31 am

Christ, man! While your effort is admirable, the experimental setup proves nothing about the radiative GHE across our globe.

The Earth’s climate system depends on a large surface of land and ocean and a relatively thin layer of atmosphere which includes clouds separating us from outer space. As a simplification, look up any derivative of Trenberth’s cartoon. You are going to have to come up with some sort of experiment that could falsify those cartoons.

Greg
June 19, 2021 9:51 am

Calorimeter is a better term than barometer.

Greg
June 19, 2021 10:14 am

@22m : stop talking about some arbitrary averaging period as being “normal”. That is yet another of the word games played by alarmists. No 30y period is “normal”, yet when that goes out in the press, people take this specious claim at face value.

Neither are deviations from the mean “anomalies” ie abnormal. They are simple variations.

In adopting this misuse of language proper scientists like Spencer and Curry and many others are tacitly conceding the issue to the activist pseudo-scientists pushing these deceptive terms.

Last edited 4 months ago by Greg
Dave Fair
Reply to  Greg
June 19, 2021 11:33 am

Ah! The good old “stop the world I want off” argument.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Greg
June 19, 2021 1:39 pm

How about stop averaging temps from different locations.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 21, 2021 12:58 am

How about stop averaging temps from different locations.

How about we accept that the concept gf an average temperature, over a region, or over a day, or even over a year, is utterly meaningless. What is required is an average total heat content. Then you have to decide what medium you want to measure. The atmosphere? The oceans? Fresh water? The earth itself? Remember that the heat capacity of the atmosphere changes with the water content too.

Can you see how meaningless it really is?

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
pochas94
June 19, 2021 11:10 am

All computer models come out of cash registers.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  pochas94
June 19, 2021 11:23 am

?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 1:40 pm

?? Seconded.

Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 11:59 am

Dr. Spencer is in an elite league of his own for being able to communicate accurate, knowlegible, understandable, objective and believable climate science like no other person on the planet……..nobody.
The world is blessed to have a person with his impeccable character willing to represent authentic science in spite of the constant attacks directed at him from flawed mainstream science!!

leitmotif
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 12:42 pm

You are Roy Spencer, aren’t you, Mike?

Nice try, Roy. 🙂

Mike Maguire
Reply to  leitmotif
June 19, 2021 3:40 pm

Pretty funny leitmotif,
His undergrad schooling at the University Michigan in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science(Ann Arbor) was 3 years before I graduated with the same degree……..so I barely missed knowing him personally.
Being much smarter than me, he went on to more academic training at the University of Wisconsin, then much greater things………I went into television meteorology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

However, I did graduate with and know this guy, Jeff Masters:

https://lsa.umich.edu/umbs/news-events/all-events.detail.html/30830-3794861.html

Jeff, also was much smarter than me and went on to a noteworthy career. I see that he has made some major career changes recently. In case you don’t know much about him, if he commented here, he would likely receive more red votes than greens from people at this site.

My last 2 years at the U of M featured many of the same classes as Jeff. He and another guy, who’s name escapes me had an esoteric manner of greeting each other and with communicating ………….whistling……..to the tune of “If I only had a brain” from the Wizard of Oz.
That particular tune only got traction in our weather obsessed minds because it connected with the movie that featured the most famous tornado we knew of growing up……..the one that took Dorothy from Kansas to the land of Oz!

I’m currently moderator at a commodities trading forum and chess coach at 5 schools. Just a nobody……..but not to the 3,500 of kids that played chess for me the past 25 years! We had to suspend chess this past year because of COVID.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 3:43 pm

This is the latest on Jeff.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/06/jeff-masters-bob-henson-to-post-regularly-for-ycc/
I only know him today, the same way that you do.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 4:21 pm

The world needs more chess players! 🙂

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 20, 2021 3:02 pm

Thanks Tom.
You’re my kind of guy!

 Wonderful Chess Tournament                14 responses |   
        Started by metmike – March 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m.   
   
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/48387/

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 19, 2021 1:29 pm

The check is in the mail, Maguire.

But seriously,Dr Roy is one of the best at making sense of all the bafflegarb.

SAMURAI
June 19, 2021 1:19 pm

PDO warm/cool cycles have a tremendous impact on global temp trends. 100% of the time since 1850, during PDO warm cycles global temps warm, and during PDO cool cycles they fall, as shown below (different colors represent separate PDO warm/cool cycles):

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1913/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1913/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1945/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1946/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/trend

From 1850~1978, there were 2 periods each of PDO warm and cool cycles, with a 128-year warming trend of just 0.028C/decade—-Oh, the humanity….

There has been a prolonged PDO warm cycle since 1978, and the UAH global temp trend has increased to 0.14C/decade since 1979, but the PDO index shows the PDO will soon reenter its 30-year cool cycle, so global temps will soon start falling again as they did from 1880~1913 and 1945~1978.

Accordingly, by 2055 or so, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the global temp trend since 1850 will again be close 0.028C/decade.

Assuming Dr. Spencer’s figures of CO2 doubling to 560ppm won’t occur until around 2250, and that the long-term warming trend since 1850 will be around 0.028C/decade, that would give an ECS of around 1.12C by 2250 (0.028C/decade x 40 decades..

CMIP6 ECS projection of 4C by 2100 is completely devoid from reality…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 19, 2021 1:41 pm

Accordingly, by 2055 or so, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the global temp trend since 1850 will again be close 0.028C/decade.”

Any global temp trend is physically meaningless.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 19, 2021 10:42 pm

Jeff-san:

”Any global temp trend is physically meaningless.”

I don’t agree with that statement.

Certainly any long-term temperature trend over 60 years (full PDO warm/cool cycle) exceeding plus or minus 0.3C/decade would certainly be meaningful, so let’s look at full PDO cycles temp trends since 1850:

1850~1913: -0.019C/decade (meaningless)
1913~1978: +0.04C/decade (meaningless)
1978~ not applicable because a PDO cool cycle has developed since 1978.

Let’s see what happens at the end of coming PDO cool cycle.

SAMURAI
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 20, 2021 12:13 am

Sorry— meant to write “a PDO cool cycle has NOT developed since 1978.”

Mike Maguire
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 19, 2021 4:53 pm

I agree that there is a strong connection with oceanic temperature cycles/variations but am not very confident that this one has the 30/60 year regularity that we have assumed. You stated that the PDO index shows the PDO will soon reenter its 30 year cool cycle and that means global temps will soon fall.
However, the PDO was negative to even strongly negative much of the time from late 1998 to 2013, a 15 year period. There is every reason to believe that this was associated with the pause or slow down in global warming and we also had more La Nina’s…..no coincidence.

Then the PDO spiked back to strongly positive/positive for several years, that featured the super El Nino and spike up in global warming. We’ve actually been back in -PDO territory for over a year now and by no coincidence have recently experienced a La Nina and a bit of global cooling.

It’s possible that the cycle was around 60 years for 2 consecutive cycles(if we were measuring with enough accuracy over a century ago) and then, just assumed that the periodicity, must be 60 years because we didn’t have more cycles than those 2 to go from. The recent shift to 15 years of -PDO, then the sudden ++PDO for several years should give us pause to stay open minded enough to be ready to adjust what we think that we know about this cycle/index based on the most recent data and not let past assumptions get in the way of learning new things.
There is no question that a +PDO regime favors more El Nino’s that belch out more warmth from the biggest heat storing entity on the planet and a -PDO, like we have now, favors more cooler tropical Pacific water La Nina’s which do the exact opposite.

https://www.daculaweather.com/4_pdo_index.php

Here’s the latest update from NOAA on the current state of ENSO.The models slightly lean towards bringing back a weak La Nina again later this year. I’m no modeling expert but would say the -PDO is a factor. It also means that a new global temperature monthly record high anomaly is unlikely for the rest of the year. When that happens without the assistance of an El NIno, it will take awhile for the baseline warming to catch up to the previous record spike highs, from the El Nino…… which is more evidence that the warming must be pretty slow.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

SAMURAI
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 20, 2021 12:33 am

Mike-san:

I wrote you a rather long reply that evaporated into the ether when I tried to post it…

Anyway, a truncated version is that: I don’t think a rare 20-year PDO warm cycle (1978-1998), and a rare 11-year PDO cool cycle from 1999-2010 occurred.

I think the 2013~2016 Pacific “The Blob” event, the 2015/16 Super El Niño event, and the fact there hasn’t been a strong La Niña since 2010 has really screwed up the Pacific.

I agree we’ll have a rare double-dip La Niña cycle develop later this year and that over the next 3~5 years, the PDO, AMO and NOA will all reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles, and global temps will cool for 30+ years once they do.

We’ll see soon enough.

”Truth is the daughter of time.”~ Sir Francis Bacon

Mike Maguire
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 20, 2021 3:00 pm

Sam,
Sorry your first reply vanished but thanks for being persistent. The Pacific seems screwed up but only based on our expectations. Maybe if we had accurate measurements going back 2,000+ years, this screwed up pattern might have been recorded enough times for it to be considered a normal part of the PDO variation. How can we possibly know if this is an anomaly that never happened before or some thing that happens every couple hundred years?
Thanks for adding the 20 year +PDO from 1978-98 that I forget to mention(after mainly 30 year periods between +PDO and -PDO). This being followed by 15 years of -PDO(1998-2013), I think resulted in speculation that maybe the periodicity was shortening. But the very brief period of +PDO and strong El Nino following that, which has reversed back to -PDO has scientists trying to make sense of it………..so I really liked your quote “Truth is the daughter of time”

Proof of that is shown today with so many wrong assumptions about global warming/climate change from decades ago that continue to be used…………causing an increase in divergence between modeling projections and observations because of applying the principle of “the science is settled” 2 decades ago.
They should have said “the politics are settled” because those outdated projections still being used based on assumptions most useful to politics are no longer authentic to objective science in the year 2021.

Reply to  SAMURAI
June 19, 2021 6:10 pm

Thank you Sam – you wrote:

PDO warm/cool cycles have a tremendous impact on global temp trends. 100% of the time since 1850, during PDO warm cycles global temps warm, and during PDO cool cycles they fall, as shown below (different colors represent separate PDO warm/cool cycles):
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1913/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1913/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1945/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1946/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/trend
From 1850~1978, there were 2 periods each of PDO warm and cool cycles, with a 128-year warming trend of just 0.028C/decade—-Oh, the humanity….
There has been a prolonged PDO warm cycle since 1978, and the UAH global temp trend has increased to 0.14C/decade since 1979, but the PDO index shows the PDO will soon reenter its 30-year cool cycle, so global temps will soon start falling again as they did from 1880~1913 and 1945~1978.

I agree with you Sam – we predicted solar-driven global cooling to start by ~2020 in an article published in 2002.

I am quite confident that we were correct, because:

  1. There is ample evidence of significant global cooling events, starting circa 2019 – see electroverse.net.
  2. I hate being wrong, and If I were wrong, I would have published something else, and that would have been correct. 🙂
whiten
June 19, 2021 3:42 pm

Simple question, for any one in the knowing… that may assist.
In the proposition of the models, GCMs, the experimental method,
as Roy points out.

Is there any where in the data and records, of any GCM simulations that actually does and produces end results as of 800ppm CO2, or even 550+ ppm CO2 at the very least?

Just asking.

Not a difficult question for the guys in the whole knowing… and in the whole lecturing the rest of us about CO2 limits.

So, what is what?

Neil McLachlan
June 19, 2021 5:05 pm

Since UAH satellite temperature record began in 1979 we have had 3 major El Nino’s, 1982-83, 1997-98 and 2015-16. The global temperature increased in 1997-98 and 2015-16. The temperature increase from the 1982-83 El Nino was suppressed by the El Chichen volcano which suppressed global temperatures. If you remove the effect of the El Chichen volcano on global temperatures then it can be seen that after each of these major El Ninos there has been a Hiatus. The Hiatus from 1982-83 El Nino to 1997-98 El Nino lasted 15 years approx. The Hiatus between 1997-98 El Nino to 2015-16 El Nino was 16 years approx.

We are now in another Hiatus after the 2015-16 El Nino.

How long will the Hiatus that we are currently in last?

Are these El Ninos being caused by CO2 or Sunlight?

Mike
Reply to  Neil McLachlan
June 19, 2021 11:47 pm

Are these El Ninos being caused by CO2 or Sunlight?”

I’m absolutely no expert but will talk as if I am…
It’s sunlight no question.
Expert prediction.. [ 🙂 ] We will have one more freak year that matches or will be just below 2016/2020 in three years time.
After that, flat line for another 4 years then a slow and steady decline over 30 years (with another spike in 2036) back to the temps of the mid seventies. Let’s see how that goes up against the million dollar models ..Ha ha ha.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike
June 20, 2021 4:04 pm

I’m smart enough to know to stick with mainly predicting the weather for the next 2 weeks as an operational meteorologist and even 2 weeks is pushing it on skill in many situations.

I also trade commodities for a living and know a few things about risking real money based entirely on a my weather prediction.
Am thinking you wouldn’t consider putting much on the line with your 30 year projection……… .and really, nobody will hold you accountable………and its sort of fun to make guesses as a non expert, with no harm in it (-:

However, if Dr. Spencer or another expert made a specific prediction like this………..his reputation would totally be on the line.

On the other hand, the UN and climate gatekeepers that provide warming and climate projections for political and energy policies have been making predictions out the wazoo that have been consistently wrong for over 3 decades with absolutely no negative consequences to them or their reputation.

If this principle applied to trading the markets, they could constantly establish wrong positions, have the market go against them in most years………………..then, have their broker tell them at the end of every year……………..”don’t worry about it, I’ll cover all your losses because I believe in you! Don’t change a thing!”

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike
June 20, 2021 4:05 pm
Mike
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 20, 2021 6:20 pm

Yes well I’m saying I believe that ”shift in origin” is all part of a natural oscillation and has already peaked.
In other words, I believe in cycles over co2 until someone proves otherwise.

Last edited 4 months ago by Mike
Neil McLachlan
Reply to  Mike
June 20, 2021 7:37 pm

Recent papers indicated global temp follows Total Solar Irradiance. Solar activity is now low and projected to stay low. Will this effect the frequency of very strong El Ninos?

First hiatus during satellite era was 15 years approx, 2nd hiatus 16 years approx. So maybe ten more years of the hiatus we are currently experiencing.

Matthew Sykes
June 20, 2021 12:24 am

Water Vapour over land has not increased. Without that amplification ECS is about 1.2C at most.

CO2 is therefore entirely beneficial to the planet.

Chris Nisbet
June 20, 2021 11:08 am

Something Roy Spencer said in the video was interesting. He said (if I understood him correctly) something along the lines that CO2 has a half-life of 50 years in the atmosphere, so if we put x tonnes into the air in 2021, x/2 tonnes of it will still be there in 2071.
This seems to contradict the Climate report given to NZ govt recently which, if I understood it correctly, said that any CO2 we put into the atmosphere will remain there for centuries (meaning we will have to upend civilisation). I’m pretty sure I’ve heard this claim elsewhere too.

This seems to be an important point.

Is what Roy says about this CO2 ‘half-life’ controversial in any way? Is that in fact what he says? Is this short half-life as important as I think it is? It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a bloody great hole in the bottom, isn’t it? V difficult to fill the bucket.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
June 20, 2021 11:18 am

In fact, WUWT has just posted another story where the claim is made by some ‘authority’ that human CO2 emissions linger around forever…
“Every additional quantity of CO2 that enters the Earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially removed from it….therefore permanently increases its CO2 concentration and leads to a further rise in temperature”.
Spencer and Karlsruhe can’t both be correct on this point, can they?

%d bloggers like this: