How has the IPCC done?

[Mencken_Fan]

1.) Is all this fuss really about a 21 year-old IPCC forecast or am I mistaken? If so, hasn't the science improved since then?

2.) During the previous -PDO global temps fell noticeably. I don't see that happening in our current cycle. Why? What was the AMO during the 1940s-60s? Solar - low in the '40s but very strong in the '50's and '60s doesn't appear correlated to anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif

3.) I keep waiting for this so-called "cooling" but the most recent global temperature anomaly chart I saw (June 6) showed many warm areas and even a few large hot areas - without corresponding cool/cold area to counterbalance them. The entire Northern Hemisphere is warm; odd isn't it?

North Carolina is warm enough as it is; we certainly don't want any global warming here. But waiting for a protracted cool period (like the previous -PDO) seems a fruitless exercise.

[LakeEffectKing]

There haven't been stable temperatures the last decade.. they've been increasing about .1C/decade.

You failed to see the phrase "or so" (wrt decade) in my post.....and all you have to do is go one year before or one year after your strict definition of "decade" to substantially reduce the overall variance in temps.

Other than the natural forcings that ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will created multi month to multi year variances, the last decade "or so" global temperatures is correctly defined as stable, relative to the majority of previous decadal timeframes.

If you are looking for some planet to have no variation in temperature over the span of decadal timeframes, and characterize that as being "stable", then you have a very few options to search. I guess start here.

[chubbs]

I'm not supporting IPCC scare tactics of screamig louder than necessary. But eventhough temperatures haven't increased to their predictions, temperatures have still warmed even if it is miniscule. I'm giving AGW benefit of the doubt until we have seen a steady decrease in global temperatures. Even if we are only warming by .1-.2C a decade or even only .05-.1C it still adds up over time.

Agree with this. We haven't seen anything in last 10 years to refute AGW, since current temps are clearly warmer than 20-30 years ago, but temps are tracking lower end of IPCC cones.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Agree with this. We haven't seen anything in last 10 years to refute AGW, since current temps are clearly warmer than 20-30 years ago, but temps are tracking lower end of IPCC cones.

This is 100% true, but like you said we can't dismiss AGW yet until we see global temperatures decrease and not just merely remain neutral to slight increase. I'm just afraid once we kick the La Nina, global temperatures will rebound and maintain the overall positive trend. Personally I think the recent bout of -PDO has had more influence than IPCC gives credit for. I think the -PDO/ last stretch of La Nina is mainly responsible for the neutral to slight increase over the last "decade" and prevented IPCC forecast from varifying on the lower end of its forecast. Until I see the next couple of decades cooling and not just remaining neutral, I think AGW is still winning regardless of the fearmongering high end predictions of global temperature rise.

[bobbutts]

I had an IPCC 2001 mean of "most likely scenario" graph back on eastern that showed it was almost certainly going to fall out of its 95% confidence interval this year, but I don't have it anymore unfortunately. Or maybe I do and cannot find it. But most remember when I posted it. They've obviously ignored natural factors or more accurately, downplayed them while briefly mentioning them in passing.

IPCC does a piss poor job at presenting natural variability to the average non-scientist or non-educated non-pseudo scientist. Whether you want to protect their peer reviewed evidence or not (and they've already gotten in trouble for putting non-peer reviewed stuff in their recent reports), their job is not solely to present peer reviewed literature that only supports their obvious message about AGW, its to educate the ignorant (on climate change) decision makers of policy on how the climate works. When they give these graphs with continuously rising temperatures and downplay any natural forcing, even on the decadal scale....its a terrible job by them of educating the public on how global temperature change works.

They are certainly guilty of opening themselves up to criticism when temperatures flat line for 10 years because they didn't educate the ignorant people about how that was easily possible. They strive to push the doom and gloom agenda. This isn't always about peer review literature, its about educating the public and policy makers which affect our lives on the dangers of climate change and the way it works.

We actually do not know how it works 100% of course which is problem #1, and problem #2 is their obsessive lack of accounting for natural variability in their message to the public regardless of if they have a citation in their work that mentions a larger error bar. They do not present themselves like that.

It seems like nobody is going to refute these points. They make sense to me too. Nobody disagrees?

[BethesdaWX]

This is 100% true, but like you said we can't dismiss AGW yet until we see global temperatures decrease and not just merely remain neutral to slight increase. I'm just afraid once we kick the La Nina, global temperatures will rebound and maintain the overall positive trend. Personally I think the recent bout of -PDO has had more influence than IPCC gives credit for. I think the -PDO/ last stretch of La Nina is mainly responsible for the neutral to slight increase over the last "decade" and prevented IPCC forecast from varifying on the lower end of its forecast. Until I see the next couple of decades cooling and not just remaining neutral, I think AGW is still winning regardless of the fearmongering high end predictions of global temperature rise.

Well you have to realize the PDO didn't truly go Negative until 4 years ago, and Global Temps Tend to Lag the PDO by...awhile (avg of 6yrs). http://www.facebook....3.shtml&h=6f0f7 (Peer reviewed study)

And even so, if you'd like to start with the PDO phase shift in 2006, you'll find a cooling trend. And even so, the PDO is one aspect of many, the Largest being Forced Mechanisms In the Climate System from changes in Solar Activity long term.

There are several Aspects of Solar Activity that correlate >90% to global tempeature trends over the past 150yrs.

January 2011 set a satellite era record in OLR.... the highest amount of OLR ever recorded....if that says anything to you... (AKA, a natural warming)

To Re-Quote one of my Responses... the whole basis of AGW is based on assumption, in the end.

TOA has never been in Balance, there has always been an Imbalance, a large one at that. All AGW predictions rely on the notion that the Imbalance of Incoming and Outgoing Energy must immediately warm the Planet in Sync... even though it has always been present in all aspects........this is because the IPCC ignores/falsly assumes feeback mechanisms and many timables, and assumes that natural warming cannot occur. Part 2 really gives it all away unfortnuately. Denying significant natural influence in the climate really is unacceptable.

Feedback is what matters as far as actual warming, not forcings directly. And when we look at feedback mechanisms, the likely millions of them in the climate system, seeing the IPCC's Assumtions on most of the feedbacks we know of (such as clouds, energy cycling, Water Vapor, etc) Are forecasting to revolve around a supposed imbalance enhanced by CO2 and nothing else.... simply is a recipe for failure......when rather you perhaps cannot view a Chaotic system in any other way is absolutely ridiculous to reality in any basis of fact!

As in, they assume that Warming Will lower Clouds... and that Clouds cannot Change In Amount over time.... a 2% chance equates to 1.2W/m^2 of increased energy into the atmosphere, (in other words, equating to almost as much huypothesized energy gain into the Climate System since 1790) (1.6W/m^2) and it is already obvious this has happened in the Past in looking at BE^10 Concentration Isotopes.

Also ignore the effect of the PDO, AMO, IOD, IPO, and all these different oceanic oscillations' effect on the climate system. That also is a recipe for failure.

And the Most Laughable Aspect... is looking at TSI (energy changes from the sun), and not investigating the potential response from the Climate System (feedback).

The Milancovitch Cycles would NOT create Ice Ages unless there was a Positive feedback aspect to Solar Incoming Radiation... Temps in these Ice Ages drop by over 6C...baded on tiny changes in Incoming Solar Radiation due to the Earth's orbital Changes......... So in looking at Solar Variations in Solar cycles, which are much shorter in timespan, but LARGER than those differentials in the Orbital cycles....are expected to have no Impact/Feedback?

It is so fooking obvious that the Feedback to incoming Solar Energy (Both Direct and Indirect) is POSITIVE. In this case, looking at simple energy changes just doesn't work... the climate system doesn't work like that. It never has, and it possibly never will.

Thats really the end of it, unfortunately.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

This is to Bethesda, I'm not arguing with you. I just think IPCC needs to realise the other factors that go into climate ie PDO, AMO, IOD, etc. I think alot of the warming is naturally caused, but you can't look me in the face and tell me humans don't have any factor in the warming either. I mean we are completely responsible for the urban heat island effect, so we do change local climate at least, so I'm sure we have some affect on the global climate. The billion dollar question is how much are humans actually responsible for and we may never find this out.

[Mencken_Fan]

Perfectly valid points; that forcing is the trigger and feed-backs are the bullets.

Given that, we then look at what forcings man has caused - and in what direction they may lead.

Fossil fuels, deforestation, air pollution, livestock, etc. are typical examples of man's triggers - right? If all human-caused triggers were placed on a scale; which side would be the heaviest - warming or cooling? Is there anyone actually suggesting mankind is in the process of cooling the planet?

I don't know that anyone here is saying it but I have heard from others that our planet will "naturally counterbalance" whatever man does. I find that rather presumptuous. In fact, I don't see our earth counterbalancing anything as long as humans cover the globe.

That is; unless our planet counterbalances us.

[tacoman25]

Here's a much better graph that doesn't manipulate the baselines, although it only runs through 2007. The graph comes from Roger Pielke who is a contrarian.

[tacoman25]

There haven't been stable temperatures the last decade.. they've been increasing about .1C/decade.

Only if you end in 2010, a strong El Nino influenced year. If you look at the overall trends for all four major sources and then try to account for ENSO to date, the best guess is around .06-.08C/year.

[WeatherRusty]

This is to Bethesda, I'm not arguing with you. I just think IPCC needs to realise the other factors that go into climate ie PDO, AMO, IOD, etc. I think alot of the warming is naturally caused, but you can't look me in the face and tell me humans don't have any factor in the warming either. I mean we are completely responsible for the urban heat island effect, so we do change local climate at least, so I'm sure we have some affect on the global climate. The billion dollar question is how much are humans actually responsible for and we may never find this out.

The IPCC does not conduct science. It attempts to provide a summation of the state of the science as produced by active research in the many fields making up climatology. If you mean the IPCC needs to afford PDO, AMO, IOD etc. greater consideration to long term climate change, then what you are really asking for is for the science to catch up with your pre-conceived notion that ocean oscillations in fact are capable of altering global climate. It's as if the world of science has not considered the possibility. In fact the notion is easily dispelled.

Ocean oscillations are what is referred to as internal climate variation. By themselves they neither add to nor subtract from the Earth's energy budget over the course of a complete cycle. Their net influence is very nearly zero with regard to adding or subtracting heat energy to the system. Only an outside or external forcing can add to or subtract energy so as to affect Earth's surface temperature at thermal equilibrium. This leaves only solar radiation, Earth's average albedo and atmosphere of gases, clouds, dust and aerosols as factors, along with process which can cause changes to those factors.

Internal variation only moves available heat energy around the system, external forcing changes the amount of energy available to the system and it is this first order flow of energy which determines Earth's surface temperature. When the +PDO and +ENSO warm the Earth's surface they do so only temporarily only to be reversed with the next phase change. Because of the long atmospheric residence of CO2, the changes brought about by the enhanced greenhouse effect will last for many centuries.

Now, can someone inform me of just how this is in error, and how it can be that such a simple oversight can survive scientific scrutiny. Maybe the science of climatology (IPCC) has it right and you folks have it wrong? Just Maybe?

[Clifford]

If the major ocean currents, El Niño/La Niña, PDO, AMO, etc change factors such as the Global Cloud Cover, then they also affect the planet's albedo.

Clouds and rain also affect the latent heat flux, and thus the transfer of energy into the upper atmosphere.

Thus, you can not ignore the influences of the ocean currents.

The problem with the IPCC predictions is that they were made based on a natural upswing in the global temperatures. So, the 2°C per century predicted temperature increase is unlikely to be achieved.

However, in many senses 2°C is just a number. If 2°C is unacceptable... What about ½°C to 1°C per century?

It is unlikely to be an issue that endures much into the 22^nd, or perhaps 23^rd centuries as we will undoubtedly run out of petroleum resources which is also a reason why one can't project infinite increases.

[WeatherRusty]

If the major ocean currents, El Niño/La Niña, PDO, AMO, etc change factors such as the Global Cloud Cover, then they also affect the planet's albedo.

Clouds and rain also affect the latent heat flux, and thus the transfer of energy into the upper atmosphere.

Thus, you can not ignore the influences of the ocean currents.

The problem with the IPCC predictions is that they were made based on a natural upswing in the global temperatures. So, the 2°C per century predicted temperature increase is unlikely to be achieved.

However, in many senses 2°C is just a number. If 2°C is unacceptable... What about ½°C to 1°C per century?

It is unlikely to be an issue that endures much into the 22^nd, or perhaps 23^rd centuries as we will undoubtedly run out of petroleum resources which is also a reason why one can't project infinite increases.

The global warming we are concerned with involves the longer term trend. Again, ocean oscillations change phase and thus their effect on cloud cover, albedo etc. is reversed with the phase change.

Forget the IPCC projections or "what if scenarios". The actual extent and rate of warming is dependent on equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is not pinned down to better than more than a factor of two. It may be 0.50C/watt of forcing or 1.00C/watt forcing. No one can say. Putting a time frame to it is a best guess only.

If we burn all the fossil fuel to extinction we will be facing a worst case scenario potential. We don't know at what temp threshold the arctic tundra will out-gas methane in a self perpetuating positive feedback loop. That's provides for the potential very worst case scenarios exceeding 5C of warming even if it takes centuries to unfold.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The global warming we are concerned with involves the longer term trend. Again, ocean oscillations change phase and thus their effect on cloud cover, albedo etc. is reversed with the phase change.

Forget the IPCC projections or "what if scenarios". The actual extent and rate of warming is dependent on equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is not pinned down to better than more than a factor of two. It may be 0.50C/watt of forcing or 1.00C/watt forcing. No one can say. Putting a time frame to it is a best guess only.

If we burn all the fossil fuel to extinction we will be facing a worst case scenario potential. We don't know at what temp threshold the arctic tundra will out-gas methane in a self perpetuating positive feedback loop. That's provides for the potential very worst case scenarios exceeding 5C of warming even if it takes centuries to unfold.

exaxctly.

Nothing else will matter if the Methane and Co2 PPM numbers do not stop going up at this rate.

Co2 will be over 500 in 40 years at this pace. Maybe 30 if it keeps gaining .5+ per decade.

[Clifford]

One shouldn't consider the entire Arctic or entire Oceans to outgas Methane all at once. The oceans, of course, have an extreme temperature gradient with very cold, high pressure at the bottom which is able to maintain the methane hydrates/clathrates. And the temperature changes we're observing is at the surface, not at the bottom.

If our planet does continue to warm, then it is likely that there will be a gradual migration of the permafrost northward. Do we have any data on this migration rate? Perhaps a hundred miles a century or about a mile a year? Maybe even that would be ambitious.

And with the migration of the permafrost, there will be some outgassing of methane.

The change in methane concentration is certainly not monotonous

http://www.esrl.noaa.../gmd/ccgg/iadv/

I believe this release of methane IS HAPPENING NOW, essentially due to a dynamic change in equilibrium points.

But, like many things it has slowed significantly over the last decade.

This year we seem to be at lower methane levels than at this time last year (along with a drop in sea level, and a number of other indicators of an actual decrease in ocean temperatures).

Methane is degraded into CO₂ or organically absorbed with a halflife in the atmosphere of about a decade.

If we haven't yet, I anticipate that we will eventually reach a steady state where methane release and absorption is equal. Thus, it is likely more appropriate to consider the permafrost as a CO₂ sink/source rather than a methane sink/source.

One should also ask how the methane ever got trapped in the swamps in Russia in the first place. It is quite possible that in a warmer climate they would act as a significant carbon sink.

[BethesdaWX]

The global warming we are concerned with involves the longer term trend. Again, ocean oscillations change phase and thus their effect on cloud cover, albedo etc. is reversed with the phase change.

Forget the IPCC projections or "what if scenarios". The actual extent and rate of warming is dependent on equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is not pinned down to better than more than a factor of two. It may be 0.50C/watt of forcing or 1.00C/watt forcing. No one can say. Putting a time frame to it is a best guess only.

If we burn all the fossil fuel to extinction we will be facing a worst case scenario potential. We don't know at what temp threshold the arctic tundra will out-gas methane in a self perpetuating positive feedback loop. That's provides for the potential very worst case scenarios exceeding 5C of warming even if it takes centuries to unfold.

Rusty, think for a minute.

You forget that the AMO/PDO are not the only drivers that modulate the climate system...Solar Activity Modulates aspects of the Climate System Long Term (GCC being an example), and these Solar Mechanisms can explain all the warming to date (explained below)........Heck the Climate system Modulates itself, since it is, after all, a chaotic machine of complication........

Solar Warming Results in a Positive feedback, as evidenced by milanocovitch cycles.........when you look at the profile of the warming, you can see the surface is warming faster than the LT, the opposite of AGW expectations... but perfectly in line with changes in GCC inflicting temperature changes of a significant poproprtion.

A 2% change in GCC equates to 1.2W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earths Surface, to be compared to the 1.6 W/m^2 the IPCC cites since 1790. A 4% change equtes to 2.4 W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earth's Surface, and a 5% change results in 3W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earths surface. This is then absorbed by the oceans, inflicted into the atmosphere, melting Ice, etc.

Many people seem to feel that the TOA imbalance we've measured means the earth should be warming/will warm to match that imbalance..... but it is forgotten that the Earth has NEVER emitted an equal amount of OLR to what is entering the Atmosphere, there has always been an imbalance, likely, less leaving than entering... that in itself is the GHE, and it is assumed that we should warm because of our assumptions on feedback to the warming through a GHE, and NOT nautral factors.

So when we see the Surface warming faster than the LT, it directly implies that warming seen has been at least partially natural, likely predimominately Natural.....its because the Earth has regulated itself from within in regards to the GHE, otherwise we'd have passed that tipping point long ago.

OLR anomalies vary likey crazy in short term scales on over 50W/m^2, within a few months, but the trend long term is also affected. If we see changes in theis Short term, we see them long term as well. Some people think that OLR is steady from the Earth outwards, as in, non-varying over time, but that is not the case, and has never been the case.

The Increasing OLR overtime by Many W/m^2 is all the evidence we need to root GCC (global cloud cover) as significant impact/driver on the climate system. This Data is from the CPC, the "official" data source for this type of stuff.

Then we have this response from Frivolousz21, worth some serious, major, LOLZ.

exaxctly.

Nothing else will matter if the Methane and Co2 PPM numbers do not stop going up at this rate.

Co2 will be over 500 in 40 years at this pace. Maybe 30 if it keeps gaining .5+ per decade.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, think for a minute.

You forget that the AMO/PDO are not the only drivers that modulate the climate system...Solar Activity Modulates aspects of the Climate System Long Term (GCC being an example), and these Solar Mechanisms can explain all the warming to date (explained below)........Heck the Climate system Modulates itself, since it is, after all, a chaotic machine of complication........

Solar Warming Results in a Positive feedback, as evidenced by milanocovitch cycles.........when you look at the profile of the warming, you can see the surface is warming faster than the LT, the opposite of AGW expectations... but perfectly in line with changes in GCC inflicting temperature changes of a significant poproprtion.

A 2% change in GCC equates to 1.2W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earths Surface, to be compared to the 1.6 W/m^2 the IPCC cites since 1790. A 4% change equtes to 2.4 W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earth's Surface, and a 5% change results in 3W/m^2 of additional energy to the Earths surface. This is then absorbed by the oceans, inflicted into the atmosphere, melting Ice, etc.

Many people seem to feel that the TOA imbalance we've measured means the earth should be warming/will warm to match that imbalance..... but it is forgotten that the Earth has NEVER emitted an equal amount of OLR to what is entering the Atmosphere, there has always been an imbalance, likely, less leaving than entering... that in itself is the GHE, and it is assumed that we should warm because of our assumptions on feedback to the warming through a GHE, and NOT nautral factors.

So when we see the Surface warming faster than the LT, it directly implies that warming seen has been at least partially natural, likely predimominately Natural.....its because the Earth has regulated itself from within in regards to the GHE, otherwise we'd have passed that tipping point long ago.

OLR anomalies vary likey crazy in short term scales on over 50W/m^2, within a few months, but the trend long term is also affected. If we see changes in theis Short term, we see them long term as well. Some people think that OLR is steady from the Earth outwards, as in, non-varying over time, but that is not the case, and has never been the case.

The Increasing OLR overtime by Many W/m^2 is all the evidence we need to root GCC (global cloud cover) as significant impact/driver on the climate system. This Data is from the CPC, the "official" data source for this type of stuff.

Then we have this response from Frivolousz21, worth some serious, major, LOLZ.

1) I didn't forget anything. I was speaking directly to ocean oscillations as drivers of climate change. They are not.

2) I agree, a change in GCC would strongly affect the global climate. We don't know that that has happened however.

3) You keep claiming the climate system is chaotic. It is not, it responds to well defined physical principles in a predictable manor. Small scale features may display chaotic behavior, but the system as a whole is governed by the laws of physics.

4) As the Earth warms the troposphere should warm faster than the surface only in the tropics, due to a strong water vapor feedback. Outside the tropics surface warming should be stronger than the troposphere. This is totally independent on the cause of the warming.

5) While it is true that the Earth never reaches true thermal equilibrium with radiation, nonetheless if the radiative imbalance is positive there is warming going on.

6) The Earth has no intention for self regulation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ensures a tendency toward balance (entropy), which just by dumb luck happens to fall in a zone favorable for liquid water and life on Earth's surface.

Now I would like you to think for a minute as to how this all fits your latest tactical ploy!

[BethesdaWX]

1) I didn't forget anything. I was speaking directly to ocean oscillations as drivers of climate change. They are not.

2) I agree, a change in GCC would strongly affect the global climate. We don't know that that has happened however.

3) You keep claiming the climate system is chaotic. It is not, it responds to well defined physical principles in a predictable manor. Small scale features may display chaotic behavior, but the system as a whole is governed by the laws of physics.

4) As the Earth warms the troposphere should warm faster than the surface only in the tropics, due to a strong water vapor feedback. Outside the tropics surface warming should be stronger than the troposphere. This is totally independent on the cause of the warming.

5) While it is true that the Earth never reaches true thermal equilibrium with radiation, nonetheless if the radiative imbalance is positive there is warming going on.

6) The Earth has no intention for self regulation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ensures a tendency toward balance (entropy), which just by dumb luck happens to fall in a zone favorable for liquid water and life on Earth's surface.

Now I would like you to think for a minute as to how this all fits your latest tactical ploy!

1) You should have brought this up then, especially the Unknowns of Mechanisms driven by Incoming SW radiation that most certainly feature a positive feedback, evidenced in Milancovitch cycles. Same has to apply to changes in the Sun's activity.

2) We don't "know" anything, but we have a pretty good Idea that GCC changes happen all the time, not only evidenced in the correlation of BE^10 proxies to temperature, but examples presenting themselves thru Ice Core data, and the overall differentials between the variation in the holocene temperature, recent less extreme examples being the LIA, MWP, RWP, DACP, MNWP, etc. I really don't care if you want to use a hockeystick, because that will only further expose the flaws of expectations. The MWP to LIA transition, for example, cannot be explained by TSI/Volacnism Alone, and in all these Cases, the Arctic was as warm or warmer than it is today....in some cases, by 2-3C (using Greenland Ice Cores, which as explained, provide a Regional and Northern Hemispheric Sense of temperature). Glaciers in the NH were, in most cases, smaller than than they are today, not so much as the exact temperature, but moreso the length of the WP. And to look back farther, there were some crazy spikes in the Early to Mid Holocene on the order of Several Degrees Centigrade.

Here is a Graph of Greenland Temperature, and an estimated global temperature based on Hemispheric Dispersion. NOTE: The Scale on the Left is Greenland/Arctic Only, and on the right is the estimated global anomaly.

Greenland on the Left, Global on the right. Keep in mind short term variations on a decadal scale will vary from the Arctic to the Globe, but long term, on this scale, there is a correlation presented in the evaporation of these particles.

3) The Climate system being Chaotic has nothing to do with how it responds, or how it is predicted to respond....only the fact that there are no fingerprints of exact replication within it. But the Climate system is indeed, a chaotic system, and is basic accepted science.

4) This is Incorrect, the LT as a whole is expected to warm faster than the Surface, it is even stated in the IPCC report. Also by NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Centre. You may not know, but I've read all of te IPCC reports at least 10 times each, and I look at everything as close as I can. But this is a false statement that I have no idea where you really got it from.

http://www.marshall....terials/216.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Although it doesn't matter regardless, as Tropical LT anoms have been flat over the past 30yrs...literaly.....Not to mention that Both Poles are expected to warm faster than their respective hemispheres.

5) A large TOA imbalance has been present since we began measuring it, and it is assumption to think the Earth doesn't naturally have this large imbalance from incoming to outgoing radiation....as in, the Earth's Overall OLR amount is not a "constant" no change thing... it has varied significantly, and trended upwards in the Satellite era, by several W/m^2 actually... very significant. Yet we're only looking in CO2 spectrum for change, and nothing else in a measurable sense... by that I mean the trend in the OLR over several decades, and its increase in the satellite era. Now if warming was occuring naturally, we'd expect to see it in the OLR anomaly, as an upwards trend, and this is exactly what we've seen. In Fact, January 2011 set an all time record high for OLR readings by Satellite.

Check this out. A mean upward trend in OLR by several W/m^2 in the satellite era, as measued by tge CPC, (aka, the "official" datasource). Note that changes by >50W/m^2 over short timespans are always occuring, and that trends long term are present as well.

This is one of the major issues woth the brute "power" CO2 would have after feedback...it is seeminly minimal to this point, in comparison with natural warmings/variability affecting the amount of OLR measuedfrom earth.

6) Thats not at all what I meant, and you know it. "Regulation", as in, some sense of stability, otherwise the climate system would have imploded long ago. This is data that everyone should look into before opening the mouth.

Cheers :-)

[Clifford]

Your chart seems to be missing a data point for the CO₂.

[BethesdaWX]

Your chart seems to be missing a data point for the CO₂.

Yes indeed, the CO2 proxy ends in the 1770's, but that is irrelavent to the point I'm trying to make here, as in, its not very important. We see Variations By 1C with no change in CO2 concentrations on the global estimation, while greenland temps vary by 3-4C. In this case, "Methane Feedback" should have been running wild.

We'll probably see a post from skier claiming this is greenland climate only, "not the world".... However that is referring to the Graph Numbering on the LEFT axis of the Graph.

[Clifford]

Preindustrial methane has varied less than 1ppm.

Postindustrial methane has increased by about 1ppm.

In about the same period that CO₂ increased by about 100ppm, and your chart shows a variation of preindustrial CO₂ of about 20ppm.

I'm seeing the Methane levels during the Younger Dryas (coldest period during the very early Holocene) varied from about 400 to 700 ppb (0.4 ppm to 0.7ppm).

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n5/full/ngeo1140.html

I have troubles believing that methane is an important component of preindustrial climate feedback, although it does have a small IR Absorption peak in the middle of the open window between water and CO2.

[OHSnow]

The IPCC has done admirably. It's the denialists, liars, and industry shills that have some 'splaining to do.

[tacoman25]

The IPCC has done admirably. It's the denialists, liars, and industry shills that have some 'splaining to do.