2012 Global Temperatures

[Snow_Miser]

Several quick points:

1. The paper you posted preceded the Hansen publication.

Yes.

It was an example to show that there are other analyses that disagree with Dr. Hansen on his paper.

Hansen et. al 2011 has been refuted by Kramm and Dlugi 2012

In our comments we greatly welcome the attempt of Hansen et al. to evaluate various uncertainties inherent in geophysical data deduced by using different measuring concepts and observation methods. However, from a view of the energetic "cycle", this paper raises some questions which we will discuss. We will show that the energy imbalance of the entire Earth-atmosphere system is, indeed, based on these inherent uncertainties. We will demonstrate that the accuracy in the quantification of the global energy flux budget as claimed by Hansen et al. is, by far, not achievable in case of the entire Earth-atmosphere system.

The paper you posted deals strictly with the 0m - 700m depth (it does mention a paper that finds a strong positive imbalance in the 0m - 2000m range).

If Hansen is questioning the validity of the best sets of data for ocean heat content for 0-700 meters, he should seriously question the validity of an OHC dataset that goes down to 2000 meters, since the data is EXTREMELY poor down there.

4. An update by Levitus, et. al. and also 2010 paper by Lyman, et al. also reaffirmed the existence of a positive imbalance at 0m - 700m.

Levitus et. al contradicts Hansen et. al, as it finds a significantly smaller positive energy imbalance from 1955-2010 than Hansen finds.

[Snow_Miser]

Their paper is a good example of solid peer-reviewed research. Since it was published it hasn't been refuted by any more recent research - so why do you call it a joke?

So what is wrong with my analysis with taking out factors and then concluding that the true signal is that we have flatlined over the last 150 years? What is different from my analysis than Rahmstorf and Tamino's?

[donsutherland1]

Levitus et. al contradicts Hansen et. al, as it finds a significantly smaller positive energy imbalance from 1955-2010 than Hansen finds.

The Levitus paper can be found at: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf

Hansen takes a compromise of values between two papers, one of which is the Levitus paper. He clearly describes what he did in his paper and the rationale for having done so. Both papers, however, are on common ground with the Hansen paper on the issue that a positive energy imbalance has persisted (OHC has continued to increase).

Also, as a bonus of sorts that addresses some recent speculation in the blogosphere, that paper also describes CO2 as being "well-mixed in the atmosphere."

[donsutherland1]

So what is wrong with my analysis with taking out factors and then concluding that the true signal is that we have flatlined over the last 150 years? What is different from my analysis than Rahmstorf and Tamino's?

The paper attempts to address the question from an "all things being equal" perspective, as to whether there is a long-term AGW signal. This approach is common practice, whether in scientific fields or economics. By compensating for other variables, one can better determine whether there is, in fact, such a signal (there is) and its magnitude.

[PhillipS]

So what is wrong with my analysis with taking out factors and then concluding that the true signal is that we have flatlined over the last 150 years? What is different from my analysis than Rahmstorf and Tamino's?

If you think you approach is as valid as the Foster & Rahmstorf work then submit your work to peer-review and get it published. Are you unwilling to subject your work to review by climate scientists?

Otherwise your work is only your opinion - and, to we laypeople, the fact that it's coming from the denialist fringe doesn't give it any credibility.

That's the difference between your work and theirs.

[Snow_Miser]

that isn't an accepted or published paper. it's essentially a blog piece.

also Kramm is on record as saying global warming has no impact on human health and is essentially made up. not exactly a good buttress if you are proving a fact-based response.

It will probably be accepted In a few months, so it is not a big deal.

Kramm is an atmospheric scientist, with a doctorate, so he is an expert in this field, as is Ralph Dlugi.

[Jonger]

that isn't an accepted or published paper. it's essentially a blog piece.

also Kramm is on record as saying global warming has no impact on human health and is essentially made up. not exactly a good buttress if you are proving a fact-based response.

In 2012 this part is true.

[PhillipS]

In 2012 this part is true.

Those of us impacted this year by extreme heat, drought, flooding, storms and wildfires might beg to differ.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If you think you approach is as valid as the Foster & Rahmstorf work then submit your work to peer-review and get it published. Are you unwilling to subject your work to review by climate scientists?

Otherwise your work is only your opinion - and, to we laypeople, the fact that it's coming from the denialist fringe doesn't give it any credibility.

That's the difference between your work and theirs.

This is gettng crazy phillip

[Jonger]

Those of us impacted this year by extreme heat, drought, flooding, storms and wildfires might beg to differ.

You see what you want to see, these events have always happened. You claimed hurricanes were on the uptick after 2006, you were wrong. You claimed Tornados were going to be out of control this year, wrong again.

You basically found a way to label everything outside of a sunny 70 degree day as an extreme event.

[Jonger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

[Msalgado]

You see what you want to see, these events have always happened. You claimed hurricanes were on the uptick after 2006, you were wrong. You claimed Tornados were going to be out of control this year, wrong again.

You basically found a way to label everything outside of a sunny 70 degree day as an extreme event.

I am not familiar with Philips prior predictions but I am familiar with many studies that have linked recent climate events or exacerbation of those events to climate change. I myself have been assisting with research regarding the danger of extreme heat waves which will increase due to climate change. Any scientist (or person, for that matter) making a statement that climate change has no human health implications is being willfully ignorant or flat out lying.

[Snow_Miser]

the paper isn't submitted anywhere per Kramm's homepage. find another source.

So then why does it say in the abstract of the paper that it was submitted on the 5th of March in 2012?

[Snow_Miser]

If you think you approach is as valid as the Foster & Rahmstorf work then submit your work to peer-review and get it published. Are you unwilling to subject your work to review by climate scientists?

Otherwise your work is only your opinion - and, to we laypeople, the fact that it's coming from the denialist fringe doesn't give it any credibility.

That's the difference between your work and theirs.

I am planning to become a B.S. Student in two years for atmospheric science, and hope to acquire a Ph.D in climate dynamics, so sooner than later, you may be reading my name being trashed on blogs like Skeptical Science and Think Progress.

[Snow_Miser]

The Levitus paper can be found at: http://data.nodc.noa...S/grlheat12.pdf

Hansen takes a compromise of values between two papers, one of which is the Levitus paper. He clearly describes what he did in his paper and the rationale for having done so. Both papers, however, are on common ground with the Hansen paper on the issue that a positive energy imbalance has persisted (OHC has continued to increase).

Also, as a bonus of sorts that addresses some recent speculation in the blogosphere, that paper also describes CO2 as being "well-mixed in the atmosphere."

In the Douglass et. al papers that I posted, they found an increasing trend in OHC over the last 10 years, but it was a significantly slowed trend upward. This is how they diagnosed a negative energy imbalance over the last 10 years. Levitus et. al also shows a slowing down of the OHC gain, towards the end of the paper.

Of course, any OHC dataset at 0-2000 meters should have a larger error bar than what Levitus et. al has for the error margins for OHC.

Levitus et. al diagnosed a positive energy imbalance over the period from 1955-2010, which I don't think anyone has disputed.

[Snow_Miser]

The paper attempts to address the question from an "all things being equal" perspective, as to whether there is a long-term AGW signal. This approach is common practice, whether in scientific fields or economics. By compensating for other variables, one can better determine whether there is, in fact, such a signal (there is) and its magnitude.

So then why isn't this "AGW signal" present in the temperature records over the past 10-15 years?

[Vergent]

The only problem with that comparison is that this decade allegedly had the highest energy imbalance ever recorded per the climate models, so it would become less and less likely that we would start to flatline any time soon over the last 10 years.

You will also notice that NONE of the trends downward in the temperatures in the Skeptical Science graph that you posted feautred such a hiatus in OHC gain at 0-700 meters, making this truly a hiatus/flatlining period.

Therefore, you are making a truly illogical comparison in your post above.

You got this graph from Roy Spencer's site. Why does he come up with 10 times the forcing than others?

maybe he gets it from here:

[PhillipS]

So then why does it say in the abstract of the paper that it was submitted on the 5th of March in 2012?

It says the email of the comment was recieved in March. It's not a paper.

[donsutherland1]

So then why isn't this "AGW signal" present in the temperature records over the past 10-15 years?

Natural variability largely explains shorter-term fluctuations. That's why the minimum climate period is 30 years. That length of time allows a t-distribution to more closely resemble a normal distribution, and it is assumed that a normal distribution applies to variable such as temperatures.

The report you criticized took the "all things being equal" approach to see whether there was a continuing AGW signal despite the noise of shorter-term fluctuations. That signal remained present.

[PhillipS]

So then why isn't this "AGW signal" present in the temperature records over the past 10-15 years?

It is still present, just temporarily masked by fluctuations in several natural variability processes. If the AGW signal wasn't present at all global temps would have dropped back to 1960s levels. We didn't see that, did we?

[Jonger]

Without weighing in on the arguement, its obvious the AGW community has created quite the firewall against contridicting viewpoints with peer review and it extended to this site.

Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar!

[Msalgado]

Without weighing in on the arguement, its obvious the AGW community has created quite the firewall against contridicting viewpoints with peer review and it extended to this site.

Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar!

I guess thats one way to look at it. Another is that peer review and scientific knowledge tend to refute poor logical thinking not backed by factual evidence.

You're welcome to embrace conspiracy theories but don't expect that to prove your case for you.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This crap that the sun's changes take 7-8 years to "manifest" itself is horrible.

Is someone going to tell me this is the peer reviewed accepted facts in the literature on this?

Can someone other than Snowlover snow me the accepted and tested data that show's it takes 7-8 years for the Earth to respond to changes in solar output?

Like I understand some lag with ocean's.

But folks trying to tell me that the solar min between 2005-2010 is going to cause global cooling between 2012-2018 seems a bit like fried Bull %$#@.

I am here to learn and quench my thirst for knowledge. I can get confused, I have issues paying my bills on time, avoiding traffic tickets, showing up for court, having any successful relationships, but I still have a fast high IQ brain that tells me this is complete crap.

I am sick of the blog posts, copy and pasted black and white charts from the 90s.

I am sick of scrolling through hours of reading from papers that make weak correlations that have low citations, and have been superseded by a dozen papers in more modern times.

So please, someone do what I do best, show me from your POV, I don't care if it takes MS Paint. Someone show me how it takes 7-8 years for solar variations, especially ones like we saw in the 2005-2010 time-frame to show up on my door step.

So while we currently sit at peak OHC 0-700M, some how during years of a solar min(which remember according to snowlover solar is the main climate driver for energy balance) we have gained heat in the upper layers of the ocean but we had a solar min.

So to cover this up, apparently any moment now the bottom is gonna drop out and OHC will drop and the Earth will cool.

Yeah, can't wait.

thanks in advance.

[donsutherland1]

I am planning to become a B.S. Student in two years for atmospheric science, and hope to acquire a Ph.D in climate dynamics, so sooner than later, you may be reading my name being trashed on blogs like Skeptical Science and Think Progress.

I wish you luck in your future studies. If this is what you have a passion for, that passion should facilitate your effort through a demanding curriculum. Should you take such a course, you will gain the skills and knowledge to really understand the science.

[Snow_Miser]

This crap that the sun's changes take 7-8 years to "manifest" itself is horrible.

Is someone going to tell me this is the peer reviewed accepted facts in the literature on this?

Can someone other than Snowlover snow me the accepted and tested data that show's it takes 7-8 years for the Earth to respond to changes in solar output?

It is in the peer reviewed literature Friv.

http://www.academicj... Al-Thoyaib.pdf

The connection between aa and

global temperature pointed that the corresponding

temperature has occurred in 1998, with lag ~ 8 yrs.

Around 1997, the aa reached the minimum value during

the considered period. After that, the aa increased slowly

to a moderate values (or reasonable) until 2003.

Accordingly, the future temperature can be predicted

from the present aa geomagnetic measures, by allowing

the lag time of ~ 6-7 yr.

http://www.sciencedi...273117707001925

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

[PhillipS]

You see what you want to see, these events have always happened. You claimed hurricanes were on the uptick after 2006, you were wrong. You claimed Tornados were going to be out of control this year, wrong again.

You basically found a way to label everything outside of a sunny 70 degree day as an extreme event.

And you basically claim that any weather short of a rain of fire is entirely natural. So please tell us - what weather events or conditions would you consider attributable to AGW? Even if you feel it hasn't happen yet there must be some sort of weather that you would feel corroborates AGW if it occurs. I'm just asking for your opinion, not a peer-reviewed paper, so I hope that others will offer their own opinions on this question instead of critiquing yours.

[Snow_Miser]

I wish you luck in your future studies. If this is what you have a passion for, that passion should facilitate your effort through a demanding curriculum. Should you take such a course, you will gain the skills and knowledge to really understand the science.

Thank you for your kind words.

[Jonger]

And you basically claim that any weather short of a rain of fire is entirely natural. So please tell us - what weather events or conditions would you consider attributable to AGW? Even if you feel it hasn't happen yet there must be some sort of weather that you would feel corroborates AGW if it occurs. I'm just asking for your opinion, not a peer-reviewed paper, so I hope that others will offer their own opinions on this question instead of critiquing yours.

I can't claim any event techically isn't AGW based... That's my point and it swings both ways. What specific event do you contribute, the heat wave possibly? Maybe, maybe not....

Connecting daily heat or a bad drought to AGW is just a way to show something to the layman, not based in concrete facts, isn't this why you are so adament about the peer review process. Connecting daily events to AGW is akin to blog posting.

Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar!

[The_Global_Warmer]

I can't claim any event techically isn't AGW based... That's my point and it swings both ways. What specific event do you contribute, the heat wave possibly? Maybe, maybe not....

Connecting daily heat or a bad drought to AGW is just a way to show something to the layman, not based in concrete facts, isn't this why you are so adament about the peer review process. Connecting daily events to AGW is akin to blog posting.

Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar!

luckily you have 40-50 more years to witness your back yard warm and never go back to any of its coldest 20th century temps.

so eventually you might come to conclusion AGW is always effecting the weather

[Snow_Miser]

because that source has not been updated. if you look at his CV, the paper is listed, but is listed neither as "submitted" nor as "in press". thus it is the equivalent to a blog post.

What do you mean by "the source has not been updated?"