Leading Paleoclimatologist: Prepare for the Next Ice Age

[skierinvermont]

The problem can be that forcings/feedbacks can fit into trends without necessarily being responsible for them. Assumptions have to be made, and while those may fit into the past, they won't necessarily work in the future.

I read a very interesting article on this subject a couple years ago, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I know what you are saying.. predicting past climate is only a powerful "test" of climate models if climate modelers put on blindfolds when making them and base them solely off theoretically physics (which for the most part is what they have done). If you are just using a set of variables (A,B,C,D,E,F) and then weighting and combining them so they "fit" to the result you are looking for.. that is not a powerful test. You can take any combination of 5+ variables and use them to explain any phenomenon.

But that's not how climate models were developed.. they were developed using theoretical physics. They are then "tested" against reality, which constitutes a powerful test. There are still some acknowledged areas of discrepancy between the models (based on theory) and reality. Although what we are quickly finding is that the models do a better job describing reality than our observations of reality do. As observational methods are improved, we find that they end up agreeing better with the models. There are many phenomena for which we didn't have accurate observations before, but once we developed accurate observations we found that models had predicted this result in advance. The scientific method at work. AGW is a powerful explanatory and predictive theory.

[Isotherm]

You're making this into too much of a black/white issue: I think Isotherm is saying that both natural and anthropogenic factors are affecting the climate, but that natural factors will be more powerful in the next decade versus the long-term where CO2 becomes important. It doesn't mean that he's not considering the science of AGW, but even using the IPCC accepted rate of warming at .2C or so per decade, it's possible for a strong solar minimum, -PDO/La Niña, and increasing volcanic activity in Iceland to produce cooling.

In my mind, we probably won't cool or warm much this decade...we're off to a slow start so far, and the plateau that started after 1998 looks to continue given the sources of it (low solar, switch to -PDO) are still in place, and to a more extreme level now than they were then. So I don't see much that argues for significant changes to the climate by 2020...the debate will still be raging at that point, I think skeptics will have gained some ground as warming continues to fall short of the .2C-.3C/decade standard accepted by most climatologists/modeling agencies...but in any case, 10 years won't prove AGW wrong or right.

Right, both natural and anthropogenic factors are influencing the climate, but the former has much more say in where we're headed IMO. I'm more bullish than you on this coming decade, 2010-2020, probably featuring a slight cooling trend. Both the Atlantic and Pacific are moving into their cold phases (the AMO is beginning to decline, will likely turn negative within a decade), in addition to the much lower solar constant. The cold Pacific takes a significant amount of energy out of the atmosphere that was present in the 90s, and we've already seen the global temps flat-line, with the PDO switiching states just a few years ago.

[skierinvermont]

You're making this into too much of a black/white issue: I think Isotherm is saying that both natural and anthropogenic factors are affecting the climate, but that natural factors will be more powerful in the next decade versus the long-term where CO2 becomes important. It doesn't mean that he's not considering the science of AGW, but even using the IPCC accepted rate of warming at .2C or so per decade, it's possible for a strong solar minimum, -PDO/La Niña, and increasing volcanic activity in Iceland to produce cooling.

In my mind, we probably won't cool or warm much this decade...we're off to a slow start so far, and the plateau that started after 1998 looks to continue given the sources of it (low solar, switch to -PDO) are still in place, and to a more extreme level now than they were then. So I don't see much that argues for significant changes to the climate by 2020...the debate will still be raging at that point, I think skeptics will have gained some ground as warming continues to fall short of the .2C-.3C/decade standard accepted by most climatologists/modeling agencies...but in any case, 10 years won't prove AGW wrong or right.

First of all.. blatant factual error. The predicted rate at this point is less than .2C/decade, we just round up to .2C because that is the closest number. The mean is about .18C/decade. .2-.3C/decade is factually incorrect.

Second of all, I know what he's saying.. and what I am saying is that AGW will overwhelm these other factors (baring a large volcanic eruption) over the next decade. As TSI ramps up again, solar will actually have a warming influence over the course of this decade.

[Isotherm]

And Hansen predicted considerably more warming than occurred in the 2000s (very little). Does that invalidate his work?

Yeah, I'm not sure how much cooling Landscheidt predicted, but a forecast of slight cooling would have been more accurate than significant warming, considering 2000-2010 wasn't far from neutral.

[skierinvermont]

Right, both natural and anthropogenic factors are influencing the climate, but the former has much more say in where we're headed IMO. I'm more bullish than you on this coming decade, 2010-2020, probably featuring a slight cooling trend. Both the Atlantic and Pacific are moving into their cold phases (the AMO is beginning to decline, will likely turn negative within a decade), in addition to the much lower solar constant. The cold Pacific takes a significant amount of energy out of the atmosphere that was present in the 90s, and we've already seen the global temps flat-line, with the PDO switiching states just a few years ago.

We haven't quite flatlined... ENSO corrected trends are .12C/decade from 1998-present and 2002-present. UAH ENSO corrected trends are .08C/decade from 1998-present, and .06C/decade from 2002-present. There was some discussion of ENSO corrected trends in another thread and these are the figures tacoman and others agreed were reasonable.

There was also a general belief that the most accurate surface measurement would be to take HadCRUT 60S-60N and infill the poles with UAH.. which shows roughly .1C/decade since 1998.

This is despite the fact that over this period we transitioned from a strong solar maximum to a severe solar minimum, which even according to the IPCC would have a pronounced cooling effect.

[nzucker]

First of all.. blatant factual error. The predicted rate at this point is less than .2C/decade, we just round up to .2C because that is the closest number. The mean is about .18C/decade. .2-.3C/decade is factually incorrect.

Second of all, I know what he's saying.. and what I am saying is that AGW will overwhelm these other factors (baring a large volcanic eruption) over the next decade. As TSI ramps up again, solar will actually have a warming influence over the course of this decade.

.3C, or even more, is factually correct if you're using the Hadley numbers (4C of warming possible by 2070), and .2C-.3C is certainly correct if you're using the upper end of the IPCC models which predict over 3C of warming by 2100. We have a little bit less than 90 years left, so you'd have to start seeing at least .2C per decade, even allowing for some acceleration, for the higher estimates to verify.

Here are all the IPCC scenarios:

[LakeEffectKing]

What makes me skeptical of the whole positive/negative feedback argument on either side wrt gradual CO2 increases(percentage of total atmoshpere wise), is that water vapor (several times more powerful GHG than CO2 and much more highly variable through history) has certainly at times been elevated for substantial periods of time in the past. Yet, given all else the same, why is there no evidence of such large increases in temperature in the near recent past(before man's ramp up of CO2 concentration) due to an extended period of elevated atmospheric water vapor??? Surely, being so much more potent and variable a GHG, we should be able to tease out SOME positive feedback (or negative one if there is an extended period of lower H2O vapor) in the historical temperature graph....pre significant anthropologic CO2 contributions. Certainly it's not a runaway scenario, nor a slap in the face type correlation or we would have seen it......and, again, such a hypothetical correlation is difficult to observe with a more powerful and variable GHG....so how does one even attempt to measure such a correlation to a much weaker/less variable GHG in CO2??

[BethesdaWX]

Again, not true. As I have explained several times IPCC models accurately simulate the last 1,000 years of climate fluctuations including a MWP and LIA.

And I've explained to you why the model results are incorrect...they take out the LIA, and underestimate the MWP.....You haven't explained anything, I want to see a PAPER, so post one.

1) They removed the LIA, temperatures in the past were adjusted to match the Model.....the models reflected to match proxies that including tree rings.

2) Volstok Ice Core High resolution Deterium shows the MWP warmer than today, and the LIA 1.2C cooler

2) Our argument is based on clouds/temperature feedback, not Historical Model predictions.

3) Proxy data gives a dipsh*t accuracy.

You're done

[JBG]

All this ice age stuff is 10X as ridiculous as mass AGW imo, there is no way to predict the end of the Holocene.

The Milankovitch Cycles actually do not correlate well with Ice ages.

http://creation.com/.../j12_1_9-10.pdf

Don't you know tail pipe emissions created the last Ice Age when presumably musk ox were pawing the ground in New Jersey and KNYC had year-round sledding?

[skierinvermont]

.3C, or even more, is factually correct if you're using the Hadley numbers (4C of warming possible by 2070), and .2C-.3C is certainly correct if you're using the upper end of the IPCC models which predict over 3C of warming by 2100. We have a little bit less than 90 years left, so you'd have to start seeing at least .2C per decade, even allowing for some acceleration, for the higher estimates to verify.

Here are all the IPCC scenarios:

The warming is not linear, it accelerates. And taking the highest end scenarios without specifically stating so is disingenuous (as usual for you).

The IPCC mean for 2010 is around .18C/decade, as I stated.

[nzucker]

We haven't quite flatlined... ENSO corrected trends are .12C/decade from 1998-present and 2002-present. UAH ENSO corrected trends are .08C/decade from 1998-present, and .06C/decade from 2002-present. There was some discussion of ENSO corrected trends in another thread and these are the figures tacoman and others agreed were reasonable.

There was also a general belief that the most accurate surface measurement would be to take HadCRUT 60S-60N and infill the poles with UAH.. which shows roughly .1C/decade since 1998.

This is despite the fact that over this period we transitioned from a strong solar maximum to a severe solar minimum, which even according to the IPCC would have a pronounced cooling effect.

Of course RSS only shows .06C per decade in the 2000s, it's run a bit colder. It seems a consensus is just short of .1C/decade as the current global warming trend.

This is the pattern of solar forcing used by GISS models, doesn't seem to capture the idea that we're entering a grand minimum very well:

[skierinvermont]

And I've explained to you why the model results are incorrect...they take out the LIA, and underestimate the MWP.....You haven't explained anything, I want to see a PAPER, so post one.

1) They removed the LIA, temperatures in the past were adjusted to match the Model.....the models reflected to match proxies that including tree rings.

2) Volstok Ice Core High resolution Deterium shows the MWP warmer than today, and the LIA 1.2C cooler

2) Our argument is based on clouds/temperature feedback, not Historical Model predictions.

3) Proxy data gives a dipsh*t accuracy.

You're done

There is no peer reviewed reconstruction which shows the MWP as more than .8C warming than the LIA. The peer reviewed reconstruction that shows the most variation and is used by respectable semi-skeptical people like ORH_wxman is Moberg et al. 2005, and it shows the MWP .8C warmer than the LIA.

You yourself have used this reconstruction repeatedly.. until I showed you that it does not support your claims. Then you suddenly stopped using it. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Isotherm]

We haven't quite flatlined... ENSO corrected trends are .12C/decade from 1998-present and 2002-present. UAH ENSO corrected trends are .08C/decade from 1998-present, and .06C/decade from 2002-present. There was some discussion of ENSO corrected trends in another thread and these are the figures tacoman and others agreed were reasonable.

There was also a general belief that the most accurate surface measurement would be to take HadCRUT 60S-60N and infill the poles with UAH.. which shows roughly .1C/decade since 1998.

This is despite the fact that over this period we transitioned from a strong solar maximum to a severe solar minimum, which even according to the IPCC would have a pronounced cooling effect.

Yes, I didn't say dead-on 0, but compared to the previous decade, you've got to admit that the trendline has a significantly lower slope.

Regarding the solar minimum, we bottomed out around 2008, and typically the most pronounced cooling lags by 3+ years. Thus we should be seeing the cooling occur now, and over the next several years.

[nzucker]

The warming is not linear, it accelerates. And taking the highest end scenarios without specifically stating so is disingenuous (as usual for you).

The IPCC mean for 2010 is around .18C/decade, as I stated.

How is it disingenuous? Frankly, I don't want to be called a liar on here as you have just as much bias in the other direction.

IPCC mean is .18C (rounds to .2C) with many of the models suggesting more...Hadley suggests more...Hansen suggests more....so how is it disingenuous to say that we're not meeting the expectation of .2-.3C/decade warming trend...I think it's perfectly fair to be honest, you're just nitpicking as usual.

[skierinvermont]

How is it disingenuous? Frankly, I don't want to be called a liar on here as you have just as much bias in the other direction.

IPCC mean is .18C (rounds to .2C) with many of the models suggesting more...Hadley suggests more...Hansen suggests more....so how is it disingenuous to say that we're not meeting the expectation of .2-.3C/decade warming trend...I think it's perfectly fair to be honest, you're just nitpicking as usual.

Because that is NOT the expectation. The expectation is .18C/decade. You are being disingenuous by selecting the highest estimates and using them as the general expectation. If you are going to use the highest estimates, you need to note that they are the highest estimates, otherwise you are just contstructing a strawman.

[nzucker]

Because that is NOT the expectation. The expectation is .18C/decade. You are being disingenuous by selecting the highest estimates and using them as the general expectation.

Well, it is the expectation if you listen to the Hadley Center or Hansen.

.2C/decade is a good estimate of the IPCC model mean, and .3C/decade is a good estimate for the more aggressive predictions like the IPCC A1F1 scenario, Hansen's thoughts, and the Hadley Center's declaration that we may see as much as 4C warming by the 2070s.

[BethesdaWX]

There is no peer reviewed reconstruction which shows the MWP as more than .8C warming than the LIA. The peer reviewed reconstruction that shows the most variation and is used by respectable semi-skeptical people like ORH_wxman is Moberg et al. 2005, and it shows the MWP .8C warmer than the LIA.

You yourself have used this reconstruction repeatedly.. until I showed you that it does not support your claims. Then you suddenly stopped using it. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Wrong yet again

Ok I'm going to dismantle your argument one by one

1) Volstok ice Core is Peer reviewed. We have better proxies in Ice core high-resolution deuterium, dD and d18O where sediments/particulates deposited around the Globe are trapped In the ice core, and is easy to determine the direct GLOBAL temperature from such. MWP was warmer than today, LIA was 1.2C colder via volstok ice core The Global Temperature has constantly Spiked 2-3C in short timeframes before...why would that change now?

2) You have yet to Post any PAPER on your "model image". Your Model Image Underestimates the MWP/LIA, and uses bad tree ring proxies to Match.

3) Moberg et al> DOES support my evidence, your graph is adjusted, and bad proxies are added. Wheres the PAPER?

4) Global Cloud Cover is likely the CAUSE of warming, NOT the EFFECT. Our argument is on CLOUD changes, which models CANNOT use back in time because WE CANNOT MEASURE CLOUDS TODAY.

5) Proxy data provides dipsh*t accuracy.

[skierinvermont]

Well, it is the expectation if you listen to the Hadley Center or Hansen.

.2C/decade is a good estimate of the IPCC model mean, and .3C/decade is a good estimate for the more aggressive predictions like the IPCC A1F1 scenario, Hansen's thoughts, and the Hadley Center's declaration that we may see as much as 4C warming by the 2070s.

And .1C/decade is a good estimate of the lower IPCC models. If you're going to state that .3C/decade "is the expectation" you need to specify who, because it certainly is not the general expectation of scientists or the IPCC. Saying .3C/decade is the expectation is just as disingenuous as me claiming that .1C/decade is the expectation and IPCC models are verify perfectly correct.

[nzucker]

And .1C/decade is a good estimate of the lower IPCC models. If you're going to state that .3C/decade "is the expectation" you need to specify who, because it certainly is not the general expectation of scientists or the IPCC. Saying .3C/decade is the expectation is just as disingenuous as me claiming that .1C/decade is the expectation and IPCC models are verify perfectly correct.

.1C might be a little low but sure....

I think .2-.3C is a good general description of the average of IPCC/Hadley (especially considering the recent revision to saying that 4C is possible by 2070), also takes into account NASA/Hansen's more aggressive predictions.

it doesn't matter anyway because none of the global temperature sources is showing more than .12C/decade warming, which is lower than almost all the models and expectations. If you believe the satellites, we're only warming recently at .07C/decade, much below any of the guidance. So I think the point stands.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong yet again

Ok I'm going to dismantle your argument one by one

1) Volstok ice Core is Peer reviewed. We have better proxies in Ice core high-resolution deuterium, dD and d18O where sediments/particulates deposited around the Globe are trapped In the ice core, and is easy to determine the direct GLOBAL temperature from such. MWP was warmer than today, LIA was 1.2C colder via volstok ice core The Global Temperature has constantly Spiked 2-3C in short timeframes before...why would that change now?

2) You have yet to Post any PAPER on your "model image". Your Model Image Underestimates the MWP/LIA, and uses bad tree ring proxies to Match.

3) Moberg et al> DOES support my evidence, your graph is adjusted, and bad proxies are added. Wheres the PAPER?

4) Global Cloud Cover is likely the CAUSE of warming, NOT the EFFECT. Our argument is on CLOUD changes, which models CANNOT use back in time because WE CANNOT MEASURE CLOUDS TODAY.

5) Proxy data provides dipsh*t accuracy.

Moberg et al. 2005 does not support your claims. It shows .8C of difference between the MWP and LIA. It is in fact USED by the IPCC. And is included in the GRAPH THAT I POSTED of IPCC models ability to predict the last 1,000 years accurately.

In effect, you tried to use Moberg et al. 2005 to refute Moberg et al. 2005. Which is just ironic.

Vostok is not a global reconstruction. It is one piece of evidence among many. I'm not sure what the resolution of the data is, its precision, accuracy etc. Which is why we use peer-reviewed reconstructions and interpretations of the data.

[nzucker]

Remember, this was my original comment:

"...the debate will still be raging at that point, I think skeptics will have gained some ground as warming continues to fall short of the .2C-.3C/decade standard accepted by most climatologists/modeling agencies..."

You do understand what "most" means, right?

[BethesdaWX]

.1C might be a little low but sure....

I think .2-.3C is a good general description of the average of IPCC/Hadley (especially considering the recent revision to saying that 4C is possible by 2070), also takes into account NASA/Hansen's more aggressive predictions.

it doesn't matter anyway because none of the global temperature sources is showing more than .12C/decade warming, which is lower than almost all the models and expectations. If you believe the satellites, we're only warming recently at .07C/decade, much below any of the guidance. So I think the point stands.

Where are we warming +.07C? Skier didn't take into account yearly GCC variations, changes in Global SST's outside ENSO...etc.

Since everything is inteconnected, a Change in PDO may change ENSO bases, or GCC variations intertwined with GLAAM changes, Sea Ice deviations from Global ST....its pointless.

After I post this, He'll restate that " we can remove ENSO". Just know that is incorrect, because the Basis of the ENSO, strength of the PDO, GCC variations, etc, will also contribute.

[skierinvermont]

Remember, this was my original comment:

"...the debate will still be raging at that point, I think skeptics will have gained some ground as warming continues to fall short of the .2C-.3C/decade standard accepted by most climatologists/modeling agencies..."

You do understand what "most" means, right?

Yes. And the reality is that "most" do not accept that as the standard. Your claim was blatantly false.

[skierinvermont]

.1C might be a little low but sure....

I think .2-.3C is a good general description of the average of IPCC/Hadley (especially considering the recent revision to saying that 4C is possible by 2070), also takes into account NASA/Hansen's more aggressive predictions.

it doesn't matter anyway because none of the global temperature sources is showing more than .12C/decade warming, which is lower than almost all the models and expectations. If you believe the satellites, we're only warming recently at .07C/decade, much below any of the guidance. So I think the point stands.

IPCC includes Hadley... that is like averaging Hadley with itself and counting it twice. NASA and Hansen are also included in the IPCC mean. Counting these again as if they were not already included in the IPCC just shows your complete unfamiliarity with the process.

The IPCC mean is most representative of the "standard" and the IPCC mean for the past decade was ~.18C/decade.

If you want to continue to spout off that the standard is .2-.3C/decade go right ahead.

[BethesdaWX]

Moberg et al. 2005 does not support your claims. It shows .8C of difference between the MWP and LIA. It is in fact USED by the IPCC. And is included in the GRAPH THAT I POSTED of IPCC models ability to predict the last 1,000 years accurately.

In effect, you tried to use Moberg et al. 2005 to refute Moberg et al. 2005. Which is just ironic.

Vostok is not a global reconstruction. It is one piece of evidence among many. I'm not sure what the resolution of the data is, its precision, accuracy etc. Which is why we use peer-reviewed reconstructions and interpretations of the data.

You are either Stupid, or in denial, I'm sure which yet. You haven't addressed any of my points, and you show ZERO evidence to your claims.

1) POST THE PAPER ON YOUR MODEL IMAGE. (No you didnt post it)

2) Volstok Ice Core is not only peer reviewed itself, it is used in hundreds of peer reviewed literature, and is a SEMI- DIRECT MEASUREMENT of global atmospheric dispersion using high resolution deterium to quantify particulates. Much MORE ACCURATE

3) Who says Moberg et al doesn't support my claims? Who cares if it was "used"? IPCC graph is inorrect, it removes the LIA and MWP, and is adjusted to Match CO2 & Bad Proxy Data.

[nzucker]

Yes. And the reality is that "most" do not accept that as the standard. Your claim was blatantly false.

This is the Hadley Center's take:

"Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people's lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change.

The study, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by scientists at the Met Office, challenges the assumption that severe warming will be a threat only for future generations, and warns that a catastrophic 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060 without strong action on emissions." (Adam, The Guardian)

Others:

A poll of 200 climate experts for the Guardian earlier this year found that most of them expected a temperature rise of 3C-4C by the end of the century. (Adam The Guardian)

[skierinvermont]

You are either Stupid, or in denial, I'm sure which yet. You haven't addressed any of my points, and you show ZERO evidence to your claims.

1) POST THE PAPER ON YOUR MODEL IMAGE. (No you didnt post it)

2) Volstok Ice Core is not only peer reviewed itself, it is used in hundreds of peer reviewed literature, and is a SEMI- DIRECT MEASUREMENT of global atmospheric dispersion using high resolution deterium to quantify particulates. Much MORE ACCURATE

3) Who says Moberg et al doesn't support my claims? Who cares if it was "used"? IPCC graph is inorrect, it removes the LIA and MWP, and is adjusted to Match CO2 & Bad Proxy Data.

I'm going to leave the most accurate way of reconstructing global temperature and the interpretation of data to scientists instead of you BethesdaWx. No reconstruction shows more than .8C in variation. Vostok is raw data and is not intended as a global reconstruction.

Moberg et al (which you have cited) doesn't support your own claims. It shows .8C of difference between the MWP and the LIA.

[nzucker]

IPCC includes Hadley... that is like averaging Hadley with itself and counting it twice. NASA and Hansen are also included in the IPCC mean. Counting these again as if they were not already included in the IPCC just shows your complete unfamiliarity with the process.

The IPCC mean is most representative of the "standard" and the IPCC mean for the past decade was ~.18C/decade.

If you want to continue to spout off that the standard is .2-.3C/decade go right ahead.

The Hadley Center sees their new 4C by 2060s prediction as an update on the IPCC 2007 climate models...they seem to think the low-end models were much too conservative, and thus this prediction is not included in IPCC 2007 but intended as an update since they think AGW is progressing more severely, with more positive feedbacks, than before:

"That scenario was downplayed because we were more conservative a few years ago. But the way we are going, the most severe scenario is looking more plausible," Betts said.When they ran the models for the most extreme IPCC scenario, they found that a 4C rise could come by 2060 or 2070, depending on the feedbacks. Betts said: "It's important to stress it's not a doomsday scenario, we do have time to stop it happening if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon." (Adams, The Guardian)

[skierinvermont]

The Hadley Center sees their new 4C by 2060s prediction as an update on the IPCC 2007 climate models...they seem to think the low-end models were much too conservative, and thus this prediction is not included in IPCC 2007 but intended as an update since they think AGW is progressing more severely, with more positive feedbacks, than before:

"That scenario was downplayed because we were more conservative a few years ago. But the way we are going, the most severe scenario is looking more plausible," Betts said.When they ran the models for the most extreme IPCC scenario, they found that a 4C rise could come by 2060 or 2070, depending on the feedbacks. Betts said: "It's important to stress it's not a doomsday scenario, we do have time to stop it happening if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon." (Adams, The Guardian)

The Hadley Center doesn't get to update the work of all the other thousands of contributors to the IPCC. They might like to, but they can't.

The IPCC mean is .18C/decade. To claim that the "standard" is .2-.3C/decade is just lying. Straight up. Straightforward. Lying.

[nzucker]

The IPCC mean is most representative of the "standard" and the IPCC mean for the past decade was ~.18C/decade.

The poll of 200 climate experts, which averaged a prediction of 3-4C warming by 2100, seems to suggest that most in the field of climatology lean towards the higher numbers, thus nearly .3C/decade being necessary to reach this amount of warming in 89 years.