Chart showing global temps disconnect with AMO, PDO, solar, etc.

[beneficii]

Hi, I've seen these charts before, but I would like them again so I can use them as a source. I know lots of good charts have been posted here.

[beneficii]

Also, the one showing the increase in median temp and variability.

[donsutherland1]

The solar-temperature chart can be found here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=8

[donsutherland1]

The charts showing the temperature distributions and variability are below:

They can be found at: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf (p.5 of the report; p.6 of the .PDF)

[donsutherland1]

The charts I ran showing a decoupling of Arctic temperatures and the AMO are below:

[donsutherland1]

The charts I ran showing the relationship of the 30-year moving average of global temperatures related to the PDO-AMO and CO2 are below:

[Snow_Miser]

Here is the chart with Global Temps and Solar activity showing a CLEAR disconnect over the last 400 years.

Source

[PhillipS]

Here is the chart with Global Temps and Solar activity showing a CLEAR disconnect over the last 400 years.

Source

Why did you pick a chart that leaves off the latest 12 years? That's about a whole solar cycle. Are you hiding something?

[Snow_Miser]

Why did you pick a chart that leaves off the latest 12 years? That's about a whole solar cycle. Are you hiding something?

If you had bothered to open the link to the paper, you would have easily seen that the data goes up to the year 2005, and this is because it is a 2007 paper.

So your claim that I am trying to hide something is offensive and unsubstantiated.

[PhillipS]

Here is the chart with Global Temps and Solar activity showing a CLEAR disconnect over the last 400 years.

Source

This may have been the chart you were looking for:

Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Granted, it only shows data through 2009 so the last three years are missing but the disconnect isn't hard to see. I'll see if I can find an up-to-date version.

[PhillipS]

If you had bothered to open the link to the paper, you would have easily seen that the data goes up to the year 2005, and this is because it is a 2007 paper.

So your claim that I am trying to hide something is offensive and unsubstantiated.

Your pearl clutching is duly noted. Here's some

. Feel better now?

[Snow_Miser]

Your pearl clutching is duly noted. Here's some

. Feel better now?

This is rich.

Quoting two bloggers with absolutely no science background is your definition of substantiation?

There are three datasets that measure TSI and not just PMOD.

This is the caption to the image you posted from Skeptical Science:

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki,1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

In addition to PMOD, there are also the IRMB and the ACRIM TSI datasets, both which show an increase in TSI over the late-20th Century.

The IRMB dataset shows a mean increase of 0.15 w/m^2 from 1986-1996. This is not very much at all, but with large amplifying mechanisms from GCRs, this could represent a significant contribution from the sun to the recent warming.

The ACRIM dataset shows a statistically significant trend upward in TSI from 1986-1996, and therefore represents a significant climate forcing over the last 30 years.In fact, with ACRIM, 65% of the warming over the last 30 years can be explained by solar activity variations.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know that other TSI datasets existed other than PMOD, but your post is definitely misleading.

[TerryM]

The IRMB dataset shows a mean increase of 0.15 w/m^2 from 1986-1996. This is not very much at all, but with large amplifying mechanisms from GCRs, this could represent a significant contribution from the sun to the recent warming.

The ACRIM dataset shows a statistically significant trend upward in TSI from 1986-1996, and therefore could represent a possibly dominant climate forcing over the last 30 years.In fact, with ACRIM, 65% of the warming over the last 30 years can be explained by solar activity variations.

Didn't Scafetta, using ACRIM forecast a cooling period starting in 2009 that would last until 2030-40?

He should have stayed with forecasting teenage pregnancy in Texas.

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

Didn't Scafetta, using ACRIM forecast a cooling period starting in 2009 that would last until 2030-40?

He should have stayed with forecasting teenage pregnancy in Texas.

Terry

Scafetta predicted that there would be a period where Global Temperatures would not change until 2030 (Scafetta 2011)

[TerryM]

Scafetta predicted that there would be a period where Global Temperatures would not change until 2030 (Scafetta 2011)

The quote from his Mar 2010 paper - based on data from presented in Feb 2009 is as follows:

"A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."

Since neither stabilization nor cooling is evident, I'd have to conclude that his 'phenomenological model' has been relegated to the round filing cabinet.

Wonder how his teen pregnancy prognostications worked out?

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

The quote from his Mar 2010 paper - based on data from presented in Feb 2009 is as follows:

"A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."

Since neither stabilization nor cooling is evident, I'd have to conclude that his 'phenomenological model' has been relegated to the round filing cabinet.

Wonder how his teen pregnancy prognostications worked out?

Terry

Actually climate stabilization has been observed in the temperature record over the past 15 years.

[TerryM]

Actually climate stabilization has been observed in the temperature record over the past 15 years.

Strange that the 'stabilization' is absent from the last graphics posted.

edit

BTW

I was genuinely curious about his pregnancy forecasting accuracy, if it failed it would indicate some flaw in his procedures, if accurate it would bolster his reputation.

Terry

[PhillipS]

This is rich.

Quoting two bloggers with absolutely no science background is your definition of substantiation?

There are three datasets that measure TSI and not just PMOD.

This is the caption to the image you posted from Skeptical Science:

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki,1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

In addition to PMOD, there are also the IRMB and the ACRIM TSI datasets, both which show an increase in TSI over the late-20th Century.

The IRMB dataset shows a mean increase of 0.15 w/m^2 from 1986-1996. This is not very much at all, but with large amplifying mechanisms from GCRs, this could represent a significant contribution from the sun to the recent warming.

The ACRIM dataset shows a statistically significant trend upward in TSI from 1986-1996, and therefore represents a significant climate forcing over the last 30 years.In fact, with ACRIM, 65% of the warming over the last 30 years can be explained by solar activity variations.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know that other TSI datasets existed other than PMOD, but your post is definitely misleading.

You're still cherrypickiing, and still ignoring the fact that it's the 21st century now and we're in SC24. And you talk about a 10 year trend that ended 16 years ago, really? That's the best you could do? That's just sad. I never said that there weren't other datasets - I was providing the charts requested in the OP.

But since you brought up ACRIM let's take a look at the full ACRIM record. Here is the plot from the ACRIM website:

Not a very pretty chart, is it? The gaps and offsets represent the limitations and uncertainties of the actual sensors. You claim that therre is a statistically significant upward trend in the ACRIM data for the period 1986 - 1996. Perhaps you can point it out because I just don't see it. In fact, the current readings of about 1361 W/m2 are much lower than the early data and very close to the record low around 1360 W/m2. Several teams have tried to fill in the gaps and to reconcile the various sensors by manipulating the data and 'correcting' it with models - but as anyone can see from the plot that's not an easy task and it brings to mind the old saying "if you torture data long enough you can get it to say anything". One would think that the newer generation ACRIM3 sensor would be the most accurate but that assumption may be flawed.

So, looking at the unmanipulated ACRIM data, why do you feel it's more robust than PMOD?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Actually climate stabilization has been observed in the temperature record over the past 15 years.

What about the OHC data?

in the last 15 years it has increased from 4.525000 [10^22 J] to 12.10700 [10^22 J]

but the temperature record shows climate stabilization?

What about Grace ice loss measurements showing Glaciers, and the two big ones Greenland and Antarctica having very accelerated melt in the last 15 years?

Sea Level Rise?

Arctic Sea Ice tremendous loss since 1997.

but you try and cherry pick from the super el nino to multi nina years and say the temperature record shows climate stabilization. Not even global just temperature record.

Honestly, not that you care, because if you did you would bring a level of integrity to this that has not been seen yet, but I have to ignore you and block you so I am not replying to this crap wasting my time like this.

We have lost 6-7 trillion GT of ice since 1997 and your talking about climate stabilization.

Come on

[Snow_Miser]

You're still cherrypickiing, and still ignoring the fact that it's the 21st century now and we're in SC24. And you talk about a 10 year trend that ended 16 years ago, really? That's the best you could do? That's just sad. I never said that there weren't other datasets - I was providing the charts requested in the OP.

But since you brought up ACRIM let's take a look at the full ACRIM record. Here is the plot from the ACRIM website:

Not a very pretty chart, is it? The gaps and offsets represent the limitations and uncertainties of the actual sensors. You claim that therre is a statistically significant upward trend in the ACRIM data for the period 1986 - 1996. Perhaps you can point it out because I just don't see it. In fact, the current readings of about 1361 W/m2 are much lower than the early data and very close to the record low around 1360 W/m2. Several teams have tried to fill in the gaps and to reconcile the various sensors by manipulating the data and 'correcting' it with models - but as anyone can see from the plot that's not an easy task and it brings to mind the old saying "if you torture data long enough you can get it to say anything". One would think that the newer generation ACRIM3 sensor would be the most accurate but that assumption may be flawed.

So, looking at the unmanipulated ACRIM data, why do you feel it's more robust than PMOD?

:lol:

Do you even know what the phrase "cherry picking" even means? I presented ALL of the TSI composites over the last 30 years, which is not cherry picking.

The point is that if ACRIM were to be used, there would be no disconnect between solar activity and temperatures, which is why it is important to determine whether it is more likely if ACRIM or PMOD is to be right.

This chart explains why there is such a discrepency between the ACRIM TSI composite and the PMOD TSI composite.

http://www.acrim.com...CRIM_Gap_4p.jpg

When the Challenger tragedy occured, the ACRIM satellite had a hiatus in its operation. This became known as the "ACRIM Gap" so lower quality satellites were pieced together to form the various datasets. The PMOD composite branches the ACRIM Gap with ERBE/ERBS satellites, which as you can see had a negative trend in TSI from 1989 to 1992. ACRIM used NIMBUS7/ERB to branch the ACRIM Gap, which had a positive slope in TSI from 1989-1992. It should also be noted that the GSSN (Greenwich Sunspot Number) also agrees with NIMBUS7/ERB with the trend in the solar activity over the ACRIM Gap. This is what is responsible for the discrepency between ACRIM and PMOD. However, I tend to favor ACRIM because of a few reasons:

The Cosmic Ray Flux has decreased sharply during the late-20th Century, which would indicate an increase in Solar Activity (and an increase in TSI)

Source: Dorman 2012

Source: Carslaw, Harrison, and Kirkby 2002

We can see that in Carslaw et. al there was a sharp trend downward in GCRs during the late-20th Century that led to a record low of GCRs in 1992. The GCR Flux fell by abour 8% from a high in 1960 to the low in 1992.

The Geomagnetic AA Index also shows an increasing trend during the late-20th Century, which further gives credence to the ACRIM TSI composite.

Source: Georgieva et. al 2005.

Source: Cliver et. al 1998

Satellite based measurements also have indicated that the amount of Total Solar Irradiance reaching the surface have greatly increased during the late-20th Century, which Pinker et. al 2005 documents.

This is not solely indicative that the sun has increased in irradiance, since there are other factors that change the amount of irradiance reaching Earth, but this is what you would see if the sun were to increase its output over the late-20th Century. A plausable explaination for this observation is a decrease in Cloud Cover, which has been documented in both the ISSCP and the Earthshine datasets. This decrease in Cloud Cover may be due to the decrease in GCRs.

This is my reasoning.

[Snow_Miser]

What about the OHC data?

You know as well as I do that Ocean Heat Content gain has dramatically started to slow down in recent years. During the coming years, OHC should flatline and even decline some. The ocean is so deep that may take many years for the ocean to equilibriate to a new forcing.

Our understanding of vertical mixing at the moment is very poor.

What about Grace ice loss measurements showing Glaciers, and the two big ones Greenland and Antarctica having very accelerated melt in the last 15 years?

I could believe the GRACE measurements for Greenland, because of all of the positive anomalies up there associated with all of the blocking that has been going on there in recent years, but not for Antarctica.

Read Bell et. al 2011 for a good example.

An International Polar Year aerogeophysical investigation of the high interior of East Antarctica reveals widespread freeze-on that drives substantial mass redistribution at the bottom of the ice sheet. Although the surface accumulation of snow remains the primary mechanism for ice sheet growth, beneath Dome A, 24% of the base by area is frozen-on ice. In some places, up to half of the ice thickness has been added from below. These ice packages result from the conductive cooling of water ponded near the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountain ridges and the supercooling of water forced up steep valley walls. Persistent freeze-on thickens the ice column, alters basal ice rheology and fabric, and upwarps the overlying ice sheet, including the oldest atmospheric climate archive, and drives flow behavior not captured in present models.

Tedesco and Monaghan 2009 for another example:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

Munneke et. al 2012 also backs up Tedesco and Monaghan.

Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades. However, these observations do not reveal the total volume of meltwater produced on the ice sheet. Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics. We find that mean continent-wide meltwater volume (1979–2010) amounts to 89 Gt y⁻¹ with large interannual variability (σ = 41 Gt y⁻¹). Of this amount, 57 Gt y⁻¹ (64%) is produced on the floating ice shelves extending from the grounded ice sheet, and 71 Gt y⁻¹ in West-Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula. We find no statistically significant trend in either continent-wide or regional meltwater volume for the 31-year period 1979–2010.

Sea Level Rise?

See for example Meyssignac et. al 2012

In this study we focus on the sea level trend pattern observed by satellite altimetry in the tropical Pacific over the 1993–2009 time span (i.e. 17 yr). Our objective is to investigate whether this 17-yr-long trend pattern was different before the altimetry era, what was its spatio-temporal variability and what have been its main drivers. We try to discriminate the respective roles of the internal variability of the climate system and of external forcing factors, in particular anthropogenic emissions (greenhouse gases and aerosols). On the basis of a 2-D past sea level reconstruction over 1950–2009 (based on a combination of observations and ocean modelling) and multi-century control runs (i.e. with constant, preindustrial external forcing) from eight coupled climate models, we have investigated how the observed 17-yr sea level trend pattern evolved during the last decades and centuries, and try to estimate the characteristic time scales of its variability. For that purpose, we have computed sea level trend patterns over successive 17-yr windows (i.e. the length of the altimetry record), both for the 60-yr long reconstructed sea level and the model runs. We find that the 2-D sea level reconstruction shows spatial trend patterns similar to the one observed during the altimetry era. The pattern appears to have fluctuated with time with a characteristic time scale of the order of 25–30 yr. The same behaviour is found in multi-centennial control runs of the coupled climate models. A similar analysis is performed with 20th century coupled climate model runs with complete external forcing (i.e. solar plus volcanic variability and changes in anthropogenic forcing). Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is still hardly detectable.

Sea Level Rise, just like Ocean Heat Content Gain, has also begun to dramatically slow down in recent years.

Arctic Sea Ice tremendous loss since 1997.

You also know very well that there are many other factors that impact year to year Arctic sea ice variations other than climate change.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Amazing.

[Snow_Miser]

Amazing.

Thanks, it took me a while to put together.

I take this response above as an indicator that you are unable to debunk any of the papers or points I raised?

[TerryM]

Thanks, it took me a while to put together.

I take this response above as an indicator that you are unable to debunk any of the papers or points I raised?

Can you point to any one of them that hasn't already been debunked many times over?

Terry

[dabize]

Strange that the 'stabilization' is absent from the last graphics posted.

edit

BTW

I was genuinely curious about his pregnancy forecasting accuracy, if it failed it would indicate some flaw in his procedures, if accurate it would bolster his reputation.

Terry

If he forecasts a temperature drop at the time of ovulation, and he says - what the hell, lets do it anyway, the temp drop is just like AGW - not real..........then somebody is going to get pregnant.

[Snow_Miser]

Can you point to any one of them that hasn't already been debunked many times over?

Terry

Well, I am unaware of any rebuttals that address any of the papers about Antarctica and Sea Level changes, so no.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The data speaks for itself.

The Sea Ice area is currently 3,300,000km2 below the highest for this date.

http://i174.photobuc...21/slide2-1.jpg

[Snow_Miser]

The data speaks for itself.

Do you know how awful our deep ocean data is? The only reliable oceanic heat content data is in the 0-700 meter range.

None of your other charts disprove what I had said earlier, and I even linked you to some very nice peer reviewed papers. You might want to actually read something for a change and educate yourself.

[Snow_Miser]

You "forgot" to add winter and fall trends for snowcover in the northern hemisphere, Friv. Let me add that for you.

It's a bit misleading when you cherry pick the months with the most decline in snow cover, isn't it, Friv?

[Snow_Miser]

And of course, no mention of the southern hemispheric sea ice in your post either, Friv.