Global Warming Predictions

[BethesdaWX]

I have made a definitive prediction. You had better save it and give credit where credit is due!!

Stronger TSI will make the difference when added to the background greenhouse warming trend. Then we will all see how radiative forcing is the heavy weight in moving our climate towards a warmer state.

If you're right, I'll give you credit. If you're wrong and we continue cooling, I'll rub it in

Any Co2 background warming is very Minor IMO (skeptical side).....The Warmth from the Record TSI from 1980-2003 absorbed by the Climate system is still with us, and due to our crappy knowledge on climactic feedbacks, its hard to tell the signifncance. I'm not going to go into GCC right now, however.

Rapid Equilibrium coincides with a negative-feedback oriented climate system...If you're assuming that TSI has a negative feedback impact right now. As in, the Climate System reaching rapid equilibrium to TSI in a short timespan cannot occur within a positive feedback oriented climate system... (climate system = oceans, atmosphere, everything). GCC a supposed +feedback to Warming, Oceans.

The Atmosphere is not Seperate from the Oceans...they are one body since the oceans determine Atmospheric Temperatures significantly....the Oceanws hold 10000X the energy the atmosphere does.

This is about energy balance, and relativity....aka, Oceans = more powerful than atmosphere. The Suns heat buildup doesn't just heat the Atmosphere, and leave when it stops/slows....otherwise AGW is nothing to worry about since positive feedbacks cannot coincide with rapid equilibrium...AGW cannot exist unless the Climate system is rigged with +feedbacks...as in, GCC is supposed to decrease with warmer temps, causing more warming....Oceans will not release all the energy from 100 years of Historic Solar in 2 years The oceans Hold MUCH more energy than the Atmosphere. does, and a Minor rise in ocean temperature can affectthe atmosphere in a Huge way!

To determine any background Co2 warming trend.......

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, ENSO, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for the background CO2 trend easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

[skierinvermont]

This is not true. Hansen understood the potential impacts on the hydrological cycle at the time of his testimony in 1988. In fact, he made a point the following year in 1989 to focus more on that potential. But in 1988 his focus was on drought...which made sense, since that was on people's mind at the time. Still a sensationalistic and somewhat unscientific approach.

His 1988 paper contains no discussion of flooding .. it's all about heatwaves and droughts. This paper was of course written long before the heatwaves that summer. It appears to me Hansen's model didn't simulate increased flooding. Perhaps between 1988 and 1989 his understanding had evolved.

Given his 1988 testimony was largely a summary of his model's results, and his model didn't simulate more flooding but did simulate more heatwaves and droughts, I am not at all surprised that that came up in his testimony.

[BethesdaWX]

Not true!

1998 had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA (June/July/August) at -.5 ONI. 2010 also had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA at -.6 ONI. Both entered -ENSO territory at nearly the same time.

His explanations make no sense, as if ENSO is the only cause for a high spike.

Yet he Conveniently leaves out the Record Drop that commenced in record time...

[skierinvermont]

Not true!

1998 had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA (June/July/August) at -.5 ONI. 2010 also had its first Nina trimonthly in JJA at -.6 ONI. Both entered -ENSO territory at nearly the same time.

Every trimonthly from AMJ to SON is .2 to .3C lower in 2010 than 1998, except JJA which is .1C lower. Add up the 3 month lagged ONI, it is closer to 2007 than 1998.

[tacoman25]

Add up the ONI with a 3 month lag for 2010.. it's closer to 2007 than to 1998. 1998 is in a league of it's own.

Except that 2007 only had 1 Nino trimonthly (and it was weak at .8). 2010 had 4, with 2 of them in strong Nino territory (1.7 and 1.5). Not comparable at all. 2010 was a much stronger/longer Nino with much more momentum than 2007.

[tacoman25]

Every trimonthly from AMJ to SON is .2 to .3C lower in 2010 than 1998, except JJA which is .1C lower. Add up the 3 month lagged ONI, it is closer to 2007 than 1998.

Show me an ENSO year that matches closer from May-December than 2010 to 1998. You won't find one. The progression is about as similar as you can get, despite minor differences...when -ENSO set in, when it reached peak, what that peak was.

[skierinvermont]

His explanations make no sense, as if ENSO is the only cause for a high spike.

Yet he Conveniently leaves out the Record Drop that commenced in record time...

Excuse me, the conversation was specifically about the ENSO effect.. if you want to discuss other factors I would be happy to discuss the effect this solar min is having compared to 1998.

The conversation also was specifically concerning 1998 vs 2010. If you want to talk about 2011, I would be happy to.

[BethesdaWX]

Every trimonthly from AMJ to SON is .2 to .3C lower in 2010 than 1998, except JJA which is .1C lower. Add up the 3 month lagged ONI, it is closer to 2007 than 1998.

And the La Nina that followed was Weaker than the Nino.....and still beat the El Nino spike with a larger drop and an All time record pace

This is the Point! The atmosphere will react differently to every ENSO event, but Its always been, the Climate system will balance itself out no matter the ENSO.

[skierinvermont]

Show me an ENSO year that matches closer from May-December than 2010 to 1998. You won't find one. The progression is about as similar as you can get, despite minor differences...when -ENSO set in, when it reached peak, what that peak was.

Except the 3-month lagged ONI is averages about .5C lower over the course of the year. 1995 is a much closer match, probably a bit cooler.

2003 is a good match. Similar peak (1.5 vs 1.8) but didn't get as cold late in year.. which balances out.

[BethesdaWX]

Excuse me, the conversation was specifically about the ENSO effect.. if you want to discuss other factors I would be happy to discuss the effect this solar min is having compared to 1998.

The conversation also was specifically concerning 1998 vs 2010. If you want to talk about 2011, I would be happy to.

Its all part of the same thing. You want to talk equilibrium and why the Solar warming from the 1990's is likely still warming us today, go ahead.

Its about the energy budget.

[tacoman25]

His 1988 paper contains no discussion of flooding .. it's all about heatwaves and droughts. This paper was of course written long before the heatwaves that summer. It appears to me Hansen's model didn't simulate increased flooding. Perhaps between 1988 and 1989 his understanding had evolved.

Given his 1988 testimony was largely a summary of his model's results, and his model didn't simulate more flooding but did simulate more heatwaves and droughts, I am not at all surprised that that came up in his testimony.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/James+Hansen+talks+about+climate+change.-a0210437308

What did you expect the impact of your testimony would be?

JH: Well, the intention was to get some public exposure. Rafe Pomerance [founder of the Climate Policy Center, who was then a World Resources Institute senior fellow] visited me after reading our 1981 Science paper [on carbon dioxide] and encouraged me to testify to Congress, which I did a few times in the 1980s without much effect. The hope was to get more attention this time, which seemed possible given the extreme U.S. climate [hot weather] in 1988.

Looking back, how did it go?

JH: It certainly got the desired attention. My regret, shortly thereafter, was that I had not discussed the impact of global warming on the hydrologic cycle in a more general way. Global warming means more moisture in the atmosphere, so heavy rain events and floods will increase. But, at times and places when it is dry, drought intensity will increase. Because of the emphasis on drought in 1988, I decided to testify again in 1989. That testimony got a lot of attention also, because I complained about [the White House's Office of Management and Budget] changing my testimony, but that hullabaloo caused the message about the hydrologic cycle to be lost.

Clearly, Hansen intended to use the unusually dry/hot weather to get more attention for his cause, and he also was clearly aware of the hydrological effects in 1988. But he focused on drought in that testimony, because that seemed more relevant at the time (at least he does admit regretting this later).

[skierinvermont]

Except that 2007 only had 1 Nino trimonthly (and it was weak at .8). 2010 had 4, with 2 of them in strong Nino territory (1.7 and 1.5). Not comparable at all. 2010 was a much stronger/longer Nino with much more momentum than 2007.

No doubt it was much stronger than 2007. But it's still closer to that than 1998.. which just goes to show how much higher 1998 was. I'm not arguing 2007 is a good match. I'm arguing 1998 is as poor a match as 2007.

[WeatherRusty]

If you're right, I'll give you credit. If you're wrong and we continue cooling, I'll rub it in

Any Co2 background warming is very Minor IMO (skeptical side).....The Warmth from the Record TSI from 1980-2003 absorbed by the Climate system is still with us, and due to our crappy knowledge on climactic feedbacks, its hard to tell the signifncance. I'm not going to go into GCC right now, however.

Rapid Equilibrium coincides with a negative-feedback oriented climate system...If you're assuming that TSI has a negative feedback impact right now. As in, the Climate System reaching rapid equilibrium to TSI in a short timespan cannot occur within a positive feedback oriented climate system... (climate system = oceans, atmosphere, everything). GCC a supposed +feedback to Warming, Oceans.

The Atmosphere is not Seperate from the Oceans...they are one body since the oceans determine Atmospheric Temperatures significantly....the Oceanws hold 10000X the energy the atmosphere does.

This is about energy balance, and relativity....aka, Oceans = more powerful than atmosphere. The Suns heat buildup doesn't just heat the Atmosphere, and leave when it stops/slows....otherwise AGW is nothing to worry about since positive feedbacks cannot coincide with rapid equilibrium...AGW cannot exist unless the Climate system is rigged with +feedbacks...as in, GCC is supposed to decrease with warmer temps, causing more warming....Oceans will not release all the energy from 100 years of Historic Solar in 2 years The oceans Hold MUCH more energy than the Atmosphere. does, and a Minor rise in ocean temperature can affectthe atmosphere in a Huge way!

To determine any background Co2 warming trend.......

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, ENSO, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for the background CO2 trend easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

Or you could boil it all down to the relatively simple physics describing why things in a vacuum warm and cool. You love to make things complicated, science seeks to simplify. The TOA imbalance tells us the world is warming and spectroscopy informs us why. If you what to understand all the underlying complications that lead to that result, go ahead, be my guest.

[tacoman25]

Except the 3-month lagged ONI is averages about .5C lower over the course of the year. 1995 is a much closer match, probably a bit cooler.

2003 is a good match. Similar peak (1.5 vs 1.8) but didn't get as cold late in year.. which balances out.

2003 is a better match than most, but in terms of actual ENSO changes over the course of a year, 1998 matches very well from May on. And 2010 and 1998 were both top tier El Ninos, which have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to produce the greatest anomalies, despite ENSO changes in the second half of the year.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.thefreeli...ge.-a0210437308

What did you expect the impact of your testimony would be?

JH: Well, the intention was to get some public exposure. Rafe Pomerance [founder of the Climate Policy Center, who was then a World Resources Institute senior fellow] visited me after reading our 1981 Science paper [on carbon dioxide] and encouraged me to testify to Congress, which I did a few times in the 1980s without much effect. The hope was to get more attention this time, which seemed possible given the extreme U.S. climate [hot weather] in 1988.

Looking back, how did it go?

JH: It certainly got the desired attention. My regret, shortly thereafter, was that I had not discussed the impact of global warming on the hydrologic cycle in a more general way. Global warming means more moisture in the atmosphere, so heavy rain events and floods will increase. But, at times and places when it is dry, drought intensity will increase. Because of the emphasis on drought in 1988, I decided to testify again in 1989. That testimony got a lot of attention also, because I complained about [the White House's Office of Management and Budget] changing my testimony, but that hullabaloo caused the message about the hydrologic cycle to be lost.

Clearly, Hansen intended to use the unusually dry/hot weather to get more attention for his cause, and he also was clearly aware of the hydrological effects in 1988. But he focused on drought in that testimony, because that seemed more relevant at the time (at least he does admit regretting this later).

It appears to me that he is saying that he testified in 1989 to correct his 1988 testimony. Perhaps between 1988 and 1989 research demonstrated a stronger flooding effect.

His 1988 testimony was regarding his 1988 model and paper, which don't show flooding.

[BethesdaWX]

Or you could boil it all down to the relatively simple physics describing why thing in a vacuum warm and cool. You love to make things complicated, science seeks to simplify. The TOA imbalance tells us the world is warming and spectroscopy informs us why. If you what to understand all the underlying complications that lead to that result, go ahead, be my guest.

The climate system is much more complicated than what CO2 does in a vaccuum, sorry. In doing that, you're assuming zero feedbacks within the climate system, as in, Ocean heat released into the atmosphere and slow equilibrium...which is what is required in a Positive feedback stacked climate system.

Rapid Equilibrium from TSI =Negatively stacked

There would be no AGW if the Climate System was full of Negative feedbacks...positive feedbacks are required to enhance the 1.2C/per doubling of CO2.

You cannot have the "IPCC's" Positive feedback stacked Climate System, and have the Same not apply to the entire climate system...

[skierinvermont]

2003 is a better match than most, but in terms of actual ENSO changes over the course of a year, 1998 matches very well from May on. And 2010 and 1998 were both top tier El Ninos, which have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to produce the greatest anomalies, despite ENSO changes in the second half of the year.

The progression of 1998 is a good match, but it is consistently higher. Averaging about .5C higher across the 3-month lagged period. There's no perfect match, but 1998 was clearly a much stronger slightly longer lasting event.

[tacoman25]

No doubt it was much stronger than 2007. But it's still closer to that than 1998.. which just goes to show how much higher 1998 was. I'm not arguing 2007 is a good match. I'm arguing 1998 is as poor a match as 2007.

I have to disagree based on evidence, which I keep showing you. 1998 and 2010 both carried significant momentum with them well into the year, being very strong El Ninos that lasted into the spring. 2007 was completely different, being a weak/moderate Nino that faded in the winter. You are focusing too much on exact ONI numbers.

Again...1973, 1983, 1988, 1998, 2010...the pattern is the same with almost every very strong El Nino, and the result is almost always a record/near record global temperature.

[skierinvermont]

I have to disagree based on evidence, which I keep showing you. 1998 and 2010 both carried significant momentum with them well into the year, being very strong El Ninos that lasted into the spring. 2007 was completely different, being a weak/moderate Nino that faded in the winter. You are focusing too much on exact ONI numbers.

Again...1973, 1983, 1988, 1998, 2010...the pattern is the same with almost every very strong El Nino, and the result is almost always a record/near record global temperature.

2010 jumped much less from the prior year compared to 73, 83 and 98.. clearly it had less of a carryover effect because of the lower magnitude. If your argument is that the super-strongs carry over into the next year more, then obviously that is much more true for the super-Ninos of 73, 83, and 98 than it is for the low end strongs like 2010. And the empirical evidence bears that out.. all three of those warmed around .15C from the year prior. While 2010 warmed a mere .05C.

[tacoman25]

It appears to me that he is saying that he testified in 1989 to correct his 1988 testimony. Perhaps between 1988 and 1989 research demonstrated a stronger flooding effect.

His 1988 testimony was regarding his 1988 model and paper, which don't show flooding.

Wow, and you claim to not go out of your way to defend the guy.

He admits that he should have focused more on the hydrological cycle in his 1988 testimony. Obviously, it wasn't a change in research that caused it, he was aware of it at the time!

[WeatherRusty]

The climate system is much more complicated than what CO2 does in a vaccuum, sorry. In doing that, you're assuming zero feedbacks within the climate system.

Thats f**king ridiculous dude

The TOA imbalance includes all forcings and feedbacks. The net of it all is warming the Earth.

There would be no AGW if the Climate System was full of Negative feedbacks...positive feedbacks are required to enhance the 1.2C/per doubling of CO2.

There would be no solar warming if the climate system was full of negative feedbacks...positive feedbacks are required to enhance the 0.1C induced by solar variability.

[skierinvermont]

1998 warmed .17C from the year prior.

1983 warmed .21C from the year prior.

1973 warmed .14C from the year prior.

2010: A mere .05C.

Clearly a much smaller carry-over effect due to the much lower magnitude.

[skierinvermont]

Wow, and you claim to not go out of your way to defend the guy.

He admits that he should have focused more on the hydrological cycle in his 1988 testimony. Obviously, it wasn't a change in research that caused it, he was aware of it at the time!

How do you know he was aware of it at the time? The 1988 testimony was essentially a presentation of the 1988 model results. The 1988 model didn't show more flooding. It showed more droughts and heatwaves.

[tacoman25]

2010 jumped much less from the prior year compared to 73, 83 and 98.. clearly it had less of a carryover effect because of the lower magnitude.

That is not a solid argument, as there are other potential factors like volcanic activity (1982 Chicon) and solar activity (shooting up in 1998, much lower in 2010).

[tacoman25]

How do you know he was aware of it at the time?

It's clearly inferred. Why would he regret not talking about it if he wasn't aware of it at the time??

[skierinvermont]

It's clearly inferred. Why would he regret not talking about it if he wasn't aware of it at the time??

He's saying he regrets it now, 20 years later, after much research has demonstrated an intensification of the hydrological cycle.

[tacoman25]

1998 warmed .17C from the year prior.

1983 warmed .21C from the year prior.

1973 warmed .14C from the year prior.

2010: A mere .05C.

Clearly a much smaller carry-over effect due to the much lower magnitude.

Again, I think you are too narrowly focused on exact ONI anomalies. Anyhow, 2009-10 ONI was closer to 1973 than 2007, and just as close as 2003.

It was the 4th strongest El Nino on record, clearly in the top-tier.

[tacoman25]

He's saying he regrets it now, 20 years later, after much research has demonstrated an intensification of the hydrological cycle.

No, he's not. Read it again. He said he regretted it shortly after. You are putting words in his mouth now trying to defend him, c'mon!

[skierinvermont]

That is not a solid argument, as there are other potential factors like volcanic activity (1982 Chicon) and solar activity (shooting up in 1998, much lower in 2010).

The 1982 Chichon eruption would have lowered the rise from 1982 to 1983, since the peak effect takes 1-2 years. Solar didn't jump much from 97 to 98 and it also didn't jump much from 09-10. Solar is a bigger factor across 5+ years.. not 1 year.

There's a consistent pattern for the super-Ninos to have a longer more extreme temperature effect. 1973, 1983, 1998 all jumped .14-.21C from the prior year. 2010 jumped a mere .05C.

Moreover this makes perfect physical sense. Those Ninos were much stronger and had a temperature effect around .1C larger.

[BethesdaWX]

The TOA imbalance includes all forcings and feedbacks. The net of it all is warming the Earth.

A laughable argument regarding out understanding of Feedbacks.

TOA is useless....Our knowledge on feedbacks within the climate systemis piss poor, and it is why AGW will fail. The climate system works in 1 way and one way ony, " Forcing & Feedback". We don't know what forcing produces what feedback, and what feedback intercorrelates to other feedbacks. Thus, you can have one forcing Masked, and another forcing Boosted. The biggest one...Global Cloud Cover. Is lower GCC a response to warming, or the Cause of Warming? Many studies have correlated the Sun to GCC changes...and if correct, can account for 75% of the warming seen since 1850.

Just to mention one, there are thousands. because if one forcing is masked, there are several that can lead to warming of equal or greater magnitude..Ocean absorbing TSI energy and building Up in the supposed Lengthy Equilibrium), even a slight warming of the oceans will eventually result in a significanrt warming of the atmosphere.

Its not simple...that is why AGW will fail, I promise you.