2012 Global Temperatures

[donsutherland1]

You also agree with Isotherm to a degree that the -PDO has had a significant reason for why Globak temperatures have plateued for 10 or so years now, which is interesting, given your different views on solar variability impacts on climate change.

The literature suggests that the oceanic cycles will play out in the context of a warming world. Accounting for natural cycles, the CO2 warming signal is steady. That the PDO might be mitigating some of the warming (temporarily) is not unreasonable. Internal or natural variability won't disappear in a warming world. There will continue to be short-term fluctuations, though the long-term trend will be warmer until the climate system comes back into balance.

Also, if "business-as-usual" (17 PPM decadal increase in 30-year moving average for CO2 occurs), the figures would be +0.607°C and +0.740° for 2011-20 and 2021-30 respectively.

Finally, the simple linear model is for illustrative purposes, only. There are non-linear effects e.g., related to the falling albedo in the Arctic. Hence, the linear model might well be somewhat conservative.

[ORH_wxman]

Interesting little experiment Don...with 14ppm rise, your model cools 2011-2020 relative to 2001-2010..but then it starts rising again fairly rapidly again in 2020-2030. IT will be interesting to see what other factors are in place. I still believe there is some uncertainty with the north Atlantic in there that can cause some abrupt coolings (and warmings) that affect especially the N Hemisphere. Particularly what we saw in the 1960s and early 1970s. 1964-1974 saw the lowest 10 year mean in the N Hemisphere since 1918-1928.

I calculated the running 30 year global rate of temperature rise...units are in degrees C per decade

You can see out fastest increase in rate was in the mid 80s to early 90s as we lost osme of those frigid years in the 1950s and replaced them 1980s/early 1990s temps. The end of the graph does show that we are flattening out as its the longest period of declining 30 year rate on the graph going back to 1980.

[Snow_Miser]

The literature suggests that the oceanic cycles will play out in the context of a warming world. Accounting for natural cycles, the CO2 warming signal is steady. That the PDO might be mitigating some of the warming (temporarily) is not unreasonable. Internal or natural variability won't disappear in a warming world. There will continue to be short-term fluctuations, though the long-term trend will be warmer until the climate system comes back into balance.

Also, if "business-as-usual" (17 PPM decadal increase in CO2 occurs), the figures would be +0.607°C and +0.740° for 2011-20 and 2021-30 respectively.

Finally, the simple linear model is for illustrative purposes, only. There are non-linear effects e.g., related to the falling albedo in the Arctic. Hence, the linear model might well be somewhat conservative.

We all agree that increased concentrations of CO2 will cause some warming to a degree. How much warming can be expected in the future, and how much of the warming in the 20th century was due to anthropogenic sources is what is still being "hotly" debated.

I like to find the things we can agree on (ocean influences being significant) so we can then move onto our disagreements and go from there.

Will made a good point about the AMO though, with it's unpredictability, it will no doubt provide a challenge to climate forecasters over te next 10 years, as there is uncertainty with the magnitude the impact of the AMO switching to it's cool regine will have on the global temperature, and when the flip might occur.

[donsutherland1]

Interesting little experiment Don...with 14ppm rise, your model cools 2011-2020 relative to 2001-2010..but then it starts rising again fairly rapidly again in 2020-2030.

Thanks for posting the data.

Also, the 14 PPM is probably the absolute best case, as that would represent a 17% decline in the rate at which atmospheric CO2 has been accumulating in recent years. I don't think technological innovation and adoption is likely to be sufficient rapid to allow for such an outcome. Something around 16 PPM and perhaps close to 17 PPM is probably much more likely for the current decade. I think the only use of the simple model is that it suggests that perhaps it is the flip in the PDO that has mitigated the rate of warming in recent years. A second point might be that it is unlikely that global temperatures would return to the levels seen in the 1970s.

Some have speculated that aerosols are responsible for the slowdown in warming, though I'd like to see some concrete data that shows a definitive increase in aerosols to the point that the increase in aerosols is having a meaningful impact.

[tacoman25]

Interesting little experiment Don...with 14ppm rise, your model cools 2011-2020 relative to 2001-2010..but then it starts rising again fairly rapidly again in 2020-2030. IT will be interesting to see what other factors are in place. I still believe there is some uncertainty with the north Atlantic in there that can cause some abrupt coolings (and warmings) that affect especially the N Hemisphere. Particularly what we saw in the 1960s and early 1970s. 1964-1974 saw the lowest 10 year mean in the N Hemisphere since 1918-1928.

I calculated the running 30 year global rate of temperature rise...units are in degrees C per decade

You can see out fastest increase in rate was in the mid 80s to early 90s as we lost osme of those frigid years in the 1950s and replaced them 1980s/early 1990s temps. The end of the graph does show that we are flattening out as its the longest period of declining 30 year rate on the graph going back to 1980.

Thanks for posting that. Probably the clearest correlation of PDO/temperature trends in a warming world that I've seen. The trend reflects the accelerated warming during +PDO phase in 1980s and 1990s, and flatlining as the -PDO kicked in mid/late 2000s.

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks for posting the data.

Also, the 14 PPM is probably the absolute best case, as that would represent a 17% decline in the rate at which atmospheric CO2 has been accumulating in recent years. I don't think technological innovation and adoption is likely to be sufficient rapid to allow for such an outcome. Something around 16 PPM and perhaps close to 17 PPM is probably much more likely for the current decade. I think the only use of the simple model is that it suggests that perhaps it is the flip in the PDO that has mitigated the rate of warming in recent years. A second point might be that it is unlikely that global temperatures would return to the levels seen in the 1970s.

Some have speculated that aerosols are responsible for the slowdown in warming, though I'd like to see some concrete data that shows a definitive increase in aerosols to the point that the increase in aerosols is having a meaningful impact.

I've searched for papers on it and really haven't come up with anything. The data doesn't seem to support it either with aerosols still rising well past when the cooling stopped...however, that doesn't mean its concrete proof as the type of aerosols could be a factor too along with pollution dimming. Still I remain skeptical on that theory though since the post-1976 temperature rise was quite dramatic and sudden and coincides with the flip in PDO too well to ignore the PDO and point to aerosols as the main cause.

The growing disconnect between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere is also a bit problematic to me too this decade. This suggests that there are even more factors internally in the oceans that may be affecting the surface temperature on a decadal scale.

[donsutherland1]

Put another way, the very simple model suggests that the apparent slowdown in the rise in global temperatures is natural variability at play. It does not suggest that AGW is not real, as the PDO as a proxy for natural variability has the impact of damping the rise in temperatures temporarily.

[tacoman25]

Put another way, the very simple model suggests that the apparent slowdown in the rise in global temperatures is natural variability at play. It does not suggest that AGW is not real, as the PDO as a proxy for natural variability has the impact of damping the rise in temperatures temporarily.

Yes, and it can enhance temperature rise as well during the +PDO phase. Something that was almost completely ignored in many temperature analyses of the 1970s through 1990s. Many scientists believed that warming was almost completely due to AGW and extrapolated similar or increasing rates of warming through the 2000s and beyond. Which is now proving to have been an incomplete and somewhat inaccurate view of multi-decadal temperature trends.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Energy imbalance compared to when? The energy imbalance in the oceanic OHC could drop down a bit and still be much higher than the past.

If you are referring to the energy imbalance in terms of Oceanic OHC not growing, flat-lining or dropping then yes that would mean the energy imbalance is getting smaller in terms of OHC.

But that is still just one cog of the picture and I do not know if you were referring to the entire Earths energy imbalance or just OHC.

For instance the incredible Greenland melt/all arctic melting shows a big increase in energy but since it's mostly from albedo it's pretty much as good as gone and all thrusted into ice melt.

But that is just one instance of a massively growing energy imbalance that is not recognized much in the global temps or even in the arctic temps because of ice melt.

That's why I worry about an ice free arctic. Or an arctic say where the Laptev/East Siberian Sea both have a horrible winter and they end up with .5 to 1.5 meters of FYI, that ends up just destroyed early on with High Pressure patterns then a nice cyclone to push the melting ice away from those regions.

Let's assume this takes place very early so by July 15th. like the Sea Ice is at record lows and the Laptev and ESB are pretty much out of ice.

Now let's assume the HP pattern returns and we see a couple months of mostly sunny skies driven by the pattern. There is very shallow water in those seas from 5M to 20M over large areas, but a lot of it is under 100M.

We can see from this animation in a very very very short period because of the power of the sun in the arctic summer we can get a ton of heat injected into the water or even "land" to a lesser extent when we see the albedo flips take place. I fully believe if Sea Ice was at 1990s levels with snow cover around normal through summer without these huge Spring -snow cover anomalies that NH and more so global temps would be a lot lower right now like .1 maybe .2C per year on GISS and maybe a bit less on UAH.

This was just in a week under good conditions but not near ideal for adding heat to the water. And we can see very large area's warm up super fast once they are ice free because of the sun angle.

I believe that if we had the snow cover anomaly's cut in half or even 3/4th's compared to the last three years, we would be quite a bit cooler in the April-July Time-frame.

This doesn't mean anything I just said is founded in science fact, I pulled this out of my ass for an explanation of the cooler global regime vs the torching arctic.

UAH TLTs.

2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12

2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03

2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14

2012 7 +0.28 +0.44 +0.11 +0.33

The red numbers are Northern Hemisphere from UAH this from April-July. We had a Cold North Pacific and a North Atlantic that went from normal or so to very warm in spots and warmer overall the AMO spiked from negative to 0.430. But a lot of the heat has been in the USA but also Polar. April-June on UAH for North Pole: +1.28C, +1.10, +1.75, +0.65.

Polar on UAH is 60-85N, and the same for the South Pole as well. GISS is 64-90N or maybe 66-90N.

June 2012 Rutgers snow cover departures for the month. Clearly it's only percentage based, weekly correlations probably show the snow albedo signal in the temp record. Because in a month a 5 day weather pattern of very cold arctic air over snow free ground can still cause very cold temps for June and well below normal. But I think we have somewhat of a correlation.

It's pretty obvious there is no way with that snow cover in tact when it was supposed to be based on normals that it would be this warm in many of those brown places. Most of the snow was gone by the 18th, but I went ahead and did the entire month.

the same last winter showed this during the sea ice in winter was running a million or more sqaure kilometers in the hole, almost all in the Barents and Laptev, the result:

The anomaly's ended up being enormous and widespread because the combined pattern with the ice albedo feedback, it might be a different kind of feedback in winter when the ice/snow is not refecting solar insolation back but is still a much colder surface than the open water is, even at freezing like 0-2C open water in no solar winter is giving off tons of heat.

so on the year we end up with a large part of the arctic with warm anomaly's but more important a large portion of it way way way above normal because of Sea Ice deficit at a point and natural variations obviously, the difference is the arctic is much warmer than the antarctic. If a place spends a few months running 30F above normal when normal is -50 to -40F for that period, going to -10F to -20F while much warmer is still a fridgid arctic climate. The arctic has less room to spare so it's large temp anomaly's are impressive.

All in all, I believe the Spring months of part of March-part of June might be effected by this in the Northern Hemisphere, how far I can not say.

1. Snow cover anomalies started to dive south in early April and were well below normal by mid April and kept slowly dropping, then plummeted in mid to late May.

2. Sea Ice Area & Extent both reached normal briefly. And stayed that way until late May/early June. Of couse May was below normal but not to much. But in June and on they plummeted. While by June 15th snow cover anomaly's are not that important because snow cover is gone by then.

3. ENSO was couldn't have done it, it didn't get NINO till June and not even moderate until July and that might only be temporary but still mild at best. So it might be helping soon or even now but it def wasn't in March, April, and May when the temps went up big time in the NH.

[donsutherland1]

Energy imbalance compared to when? The energy imbalance in the oceanic OHC could drop down a bit and still be much higher than the past.

The energy imbalance remains substantial. Hansen estimated a continuing imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m² during the 6-yr period 2005-2010.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

Guys, what about this year's AMO:

2002 0.207 0.195 0.177 0.060 -0.019 -0.085 -0.028 0.144 0.119 0.149 0.053 0.034

2003 0.081 0.014 0.136 0.104 0.182 0.240 0.320 0.458 0.488 0.460 0.257 0.256

2004 0.239 0.238 0.186 0.140 0.027 0.206 0.264 0.350 0.272 0.277 0.261 0.222

2005 0.144 0.154 0.313 0.325 0.320 0.358 0.486 0.476 0.455 0.271 0.167 0.246

2006 0.152 0.100 0.086 0.229 0.337 0.368 0.414 0.446 0.404 0.370 0.312 0.199

2007 0.199 0.244 0.157 0.191 0.141 0.123 0.169 0.094 0.135 0.196 0.211 0.140

2008 0.058 0.156 0.192 0.078 0.200 0.294 0.244 0.208 0.235 0.136 0.038 0.056

2009 -0.025 -0.130 -0.132 -0.096 -0.032 0.159 0.266 0.189 0.093 0.205 0.105 0.119

2010 0.075 0.208 0.320 0.464 0.493 0.483 0.489 0.566 0.488 0.364 0.276 0.247

2011 0.179 0.141 0.089 0.126 0.179 0.213 0.133 0.187 0.190 0.101 -0.038 -0.013

2012 -0.034 0.035 0.055 0.116 0.198 0.339 0.419

Far stronger this summer than 2011 was. But it has only been two months so far that has been pretty high. I would think we will see a response from this as well at some point. MEI is also showing a warm response coming. How long and how strong we will have to see.

2002 -0.05 -0.208 -0.196 0.339 0.78 0.864 0.596 0.912 0.803 0.951 1.057 1.109

2003 1.184 0.927 0.819 0.308 0.05 0.033 0.089 0.236 0.44 0.508 0.518 0.314

2004 0.308 0.329 -0.123 0.216 0.472 0.19 0.472 0.672 0.522 0.464 0.785 0.643

2005 0.301 0.799 1.018 0.559 0.758 0.499 0.492 0.307 0.251 -0.168 -0.409 -0.586

2006 -0.472 -0.45 -0.588 -0.687 -0.034 0.564 0.628 0.749 0.787 0.89 1.289 0.95

2007 0.973 0.515 0.076 -0.049 0.187 -0.331 -0.29 -0.46 -1.169 -1.144 -1.179 -1.168

2008 -1.012 -1.398 -1.631 -0.942 -0.353 0.136 0.003 -0.286 -0.653 -0.783 -0.625 -0.667

2009 -0.753 -0.715 -0.713 -0.159 0.37 0.943 0.938 0.934 0.762 1.018 1.061 1.007

2010 1.152 1.52 1.39 0.863 0.577 -0.433 -1.166 -1.849 -2.037 -1.948 -1.606 -1.58

2011 -1.678 -1.56 -1.559 -1.492 -0.322 -0.169 -0.087 -0.503 -0.772 -0.968 -0.98 -0.979

2012 -1.046 -0.702 -0.41 0.059 0.706 0.903 1.139

The PDO has been negative month after month for a while. Given how damn negative it's been since last summer, it has likely played a large role in limiting the warmth this year so far compared to where it might be with different circumstances. There is no doubt the very cold N. Pacific + Nina was a big player in this. However we may see a temporary relief from the large negative numbers and maybe even reach positive for late summer, maybe not, but it won't stay positive if the long term negative trend keeps kicking ass like this.

2010 0.83 0.82 0.44 0.78 0.62 -0.22 -1.05 -1.27 -1.61 -1.06 -0.82 -1.21

2011 -0.92 -0.83 -0.69 -0.42 -0.37 -0.69 -1.86 -1.74 -1.79 -1.34 -2.33 -1.79

2012 -1.38 -0.85 -1.05 -0.27 -1.26

So when we look at UAH the last year and half. I think 2012 is going to finish much warmer than 2011 did.

Here are the monthly stats:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS

2011 01 -0.01 -0.06 +0.04 -0.37

2011 02 -0.02 -0.04 +0.00 -0.35

2011 03 -0.10 -0.07 -0.13 -0.34

2011 04 +0.12 +0.20 +0.04 -0.23

2011 05 +0.13 +0.15 +0.12 -0.04

2011 06 +0.32 +0.38 +0.25 +0.23

2011 07 +0.37 +0.34 +0.40 +0.20

2011 08 +0.33 +0.32 +0.33 +0.16

2011 09 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.18

2011 10 +0.12 +0.17 +0.06 -0.05

2011 11 +0.12 +0.08 +0.17 +0.02

2011 12 +0.13 +0.20 +0.06 +0.04

2012 1 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 -0.14

2012 2 -0.11 -0.01 -0.21 -0.28

2012 3 +0.11 +0.13 +0.09 -0.11

2012 4 +0.30 +0.41 +0.19 -0.12

2012 5 +0.29 +0.44 +0.14 +0.03

2012 6 +0.37 +0.54 +0.20 +0.14

2012 7 +0.28 +0.44 +0.11 +0.33

While it's impossible to predict in the short term with very much accuracy. 2011 has an August anomaly of .33 I would assume that is top 3 or 4 on the UAH record. This was however with a warm NH and SH.

Channel 5 temps and global SSTs are both running very warm attm. Channel 5 temps while only for 3 days have been 2nd behind 2010, but have also fallen as well. As far as the rest of August and September. I think 2012 will end up warmer than 2011 in both months, August only by a little bit like .35-.40 for August 2012, while August 2011 was .33. I am going on the first 12 days for one. While 2012 has just only been above 2011 for 4 days this month and 2011 is still leading 2012 at channel 5 but it is not very much. 2011 has a large fall this week up coming, I don't think 2012 will do that given the different signals. And unless ENSO tanks in Sept, I think Sept is also gonna be quite a bit warmer for 2012.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The energy imbalance remains substantial. Hansen estimated a continuing imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m² during the 6-yr period 2005-2010.

http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

If you get time will you give us the run down of where this energy is going besides the oceans?

Does this include energy that comes directly from ice and snow albedo that goes directly back into melting snow and ice faster, so while the Earth doesn't get much warmer surface temp wise or at all, it seem the Ice mass balance is shifting to more and more ice melt.

[donsutherland1]

If you get time will you give us the run down of where this energy is going besides the oceans?

Does this include energy that comes directly from ice and snow albedo that goes directly back into melting snow and ice faster, so while the Earth doesn't get much warmer surface temp wise or at all, it seem the Ice mass balance is shifting to more and more ice melt.

The vast majority of the energy goes into the oceans. The rest goes to land warming, ice melt, and atmospheric warming. Of the non-ocean portion, the amount going toward ice melting has been increasing. During the 2005-10 period, ice melt accounted for the largest share of the non-ocean portion. The 2005-10 period saw the portion going for ice melting increase by nearly 70% from the larger 1993-2008 timeframe. The portion driving land warming fell by nearly 8%.

The following chart comes from Dr. Hansen's paper:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf (p.13433/p.13 of the .pdf).

[donsutherland1]

So when we look at UAH the last year and half. I think 2012 is going to finish much warmer than 2011 did.

I agree. Even as the January-July GISS anomaly is +0.493°C (below the 2011 annual anomaly of +0.513°C), I still believe 2012 will finish warmer overall. To do so, one would need an average anomaly of just over +0.54°C for the August-December timeframe.

[WeatherRusty]

In his paper, Shaviv writes:

Three independent data sets consistently show that the oceans absorb and emit an order of magnitude more heat than could be expected from just the variations in the total solar irradiance.

We thus conclude that the apparent oceanic flux variations must be the result of a large amount of heat of an external forcing, which periodically enters and leaves the oceans without being amplified by the atmosphere nor by an internal oceanic mode. This implies that the sun affects climate through a mechanism other than TSI variations.

Several quick points:

1. Shaviv correctly notes that the oceans absorb/emit far more heat than can be explained by solar irradiance.

2. Shaviv speculates that the discrepancy between TSI and the actual heat is due to some mechanism that amplifies solar forcing.

IMO, the second point is where Shaviv makes an error. He assumes that something is amplifying the solar forcing.

What he is actually coming across is the anthropogenic forcing. If one accounts for that forcing, the energy imbalance is completely explained (Hansen, et al., "Earth's energy imbalance and implications, December 2011). Hence, one need not speculate on the existence of an unknown amplifying mechanism(s) to explain the discrepancy when one can calculate the radiative forcing attributable to an identified forcing and fully account for that discrepancy.

I pointed that out to Snowlover some time ago. It just so happens that if we multiply the solar forcing ( something near 0.24/m^2 over the duration of the 11 year cycle) X 7 or 8 we come quit close to the estimated 1.6W/m^2 anthropogenic forcing. Coincidence?

Since we tease out the solar contribution to temperature variability over the solar cycle to be near 0.1C and the Planck Response to a 0.24W/m^2 forcing is 0.08K, we already have a tight correlation between solar forcing and temperature response.

It seems as though for every point made by conventional science, if it relates to climate science, the skeptics conveniently produce a counter point as an alternate explanation. Coincidence?

[PhillipS]

Interesting little experiment Don...with 14ppm rise, your model cools 2011-2020 relative to 2001-2010..but then it starts rising again fairly rapidly again in 2020-2030. IT will be interesting to see what other factors are in place. I still believe there is some uncertainty with the north Atlantic in there that can cause some abrupt coolings (and warmings) that affect especially the N Hemisphere. Particularly what we saw in the 1960s and early 1970s. 1964-1974 saw the lowest 10 year mean in the N Hemisphere since 1918-1928.

I calculated the running 30 year global rate of temperature rise...units are in degrees C per decade

You can see out fastest increase in rate was in the mid 80s to early 90s as we lost osme of those frigid years in the 1950s and replaced them 1980s/early 1990s temps. The end of the graph does show that we are flattening out as its the longest period of declining 30 year rate on the graph going back to 1980.

That's an interesting plot - thank you for sharing it with us. I just want to make sure I understand it. SInce it shows the rate of temperature rise, and the units are in degrees C/decade - for the Earth to be cooling the line would have to drop down into negative values - is that correct?

So the rate of global warming has recently stabilized at between 0.16 and 0.18 C/decade?

[LakeEffectKing]

That's an interesting plot - thank you for sharing it with us. I just want to make sure I understand it. SInce it shows the rate of temperature rise, and the units are in degrees C/decade - for the Earth to be cooling the line would have to drop down into negative values - is that correct?

So the rate of global warming has recently stabilized at between 0.16 and 0.18 C/decade?

Yes, for the 30yr running mean....

[donsutherland1]

Yes, and it can enhance temperature rise as well during the +PDO phase. Something that was almost completely ignored in many temperature analyses of the 1970s through 1990s. Many scientists believed that warming was almost completely due to AGW and extrapolated similar or increasing rates of warming through the 2000s and beyond. Which is now proving to have been an incomplete and somewhat inaccurate view of multi-decadal temperature trends.

A rising PDO can enhance the increase in temperatures. Understanding of the climate system is better than it was back in the 1970s and even 1990s, though the idea that anthropogenic contributions of CO2 would increase temperatures has survived the test of time. As atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, the forcing related to that CO2 will continue to increase relative to the others. Hence, the overall impact of the PDO cycle will be diminished in relative terms (account for a smaller share of the overall temperature trend).

That idea shows up in the very simple linear model I constructed. Even as the model is highly simple and should not be used to make firm predictions, it has some utility for illustrating larger points. In running the scenarios, I assumed that the PDO would be even colder for the 2021-30 period than the 2011-20 timeframe (based on the last PDO- cycle). Nevertheless, the decadal increase in global temperature anomalies were shown returning toward the rate of increase seen previously. Indeed, the 2021-30 period would have a decadal average anomaly that would be above 2010's record annual anomaly (and the 2011-2020 mean anomly of around +0.58°C might imply that the 2010 record would be broken some time this decade; if the emergent El Niño rivals the 2002-03 and 2009-10 events in magnitude and duration, perhaps a run could be made at the record next year). That outcome toward a pickup in warming did not change materially even when I assumed a PDO- cycle that was quite a bit colder than the last cycle.

[Snow_Miser]

I pointed that out to Snowlover some time ago. It just so happens that if we multiply the solar forcing ( something near 0.24/m^2 over the duration of the 11 year cycle) X 7 or 8 we come quit close to the estimated 1.6W/m^2 anthropogenic forcing. Coincidence?

Since we tease out the solar contribution to temperature variability over the solar cycle to be near 0.1C and the Planck Response to a 0.24W/m^2 forcing is 0.08K, we already have a tight correlation between solar forcing and temperature response.

It seems as though for every point made by conventional science, if it relates to climate science, the skeptics conveniently produce a counter point as an alternate explanation. Coincidence?

I calculated te forcing over the solar cycle to actually be less than 0.24 w/m^2, and closer to 0.18 w/m^2. The forcing from the sun's irradiance as estimated from Haigh 2003 since the Maunder Minimum had a mean forcing of 0.61 w/m^2. If you multiply this by a factor of 7 or 8, this is substantially larger than the anthropogenic forcing during this timeframe.

Also, when you assume that the temperature response to small solar irradiance changes is around 0.08 K, you are assuming that the earth radiates like a blackbody at around 3.3 w/m^2 for every Degree C. Earth may very well radiate much more than 3.3 w/m^2 for every Degree C.

We have observed a factor the multiplies the irradiance forcing by a factor of 7 or 8. This can not be ignored.

[Snow_Miser]

The energy imbalance remains substantial. Hansen estimated a continuing imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m² during the 6-yr period 2005-2010.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf

Again, that's assuming that there is no substantial error, which seems unlikely.

[donsutherland1]

I pointed that out to Snowlover some time ago. It just so happens that if we multiply the solar forcing ( something near 0.24/m^2 over the duration of the 11 year cycle) X 7 or 8 we come quit close to the estimated 1.6W/m^2 anthropogenic forcing. Coincidence?

Since we tease out the solar contribution to temperature variability over the solar cycle to be near 0.1C and the Planck Response to a 0.24W/m^2 forcing is 0.08K, we already have a tight correlation between solar forcing and temperature response.

I don't think it is a coincidence. Physics offers a very strong approximation of what one should expect given CO2's radiative properties.

As the Shaviv paper excluded the anthropogenic forcing, it is not surprising that a large gap existed between the impact of solar forcing and actual outcome. The paper's trying to explain the gap as being created by a solar amplifying mechanism when the science has already identified an external forcing that accounts fully for the gap is, at least in my opinion, not good work. It is far more an attempt to fudge an alternative explanation than an attempt to discuss the reason for the gap.

The best one can take from that paper is that the impact of solar forcing is relatively modest and that it cannot, by itself, explain the observed temperature trend. Therefore, most of the temperature trend is explained by factor(s) other than solar forcing. Of course, conventional science already has a robust explanation.

[Snow_Miser]

I don't think it is a coincidence. Physics offers a very strong approximation of what one should expect given CO2's radiative properties.

As the Shaviv paper excluded the anthropogenic forcing, it is not surprising that a large gap existed between the impact of solar forcing and actual outcome. The paper's trying to explain the gap as being created by a solar amplifying mechanism when the science has already identified an external forcing that accounts fully for the gap is, at least in my opinion, not good work. It is far more an attempt to fudge an alternative explanation than an attempt to discuss the reason for the gap.

The best one can take from that paper is that the impact of solar forcing is relatively modest and that it cannot, by itself, explain the observed temperature trend. Therefore, most of the temperature trend is explained by factor(s) other than solar forcing. Of course, conventional science already has a robust explanation.

Don,

The cooling influence being 7-8 times larger than the cooling influence by the TSI Forcing during the downside of a solar cycle can not be explained by the positive forcing from anthropogenic sources.

In addition, Shaviv detrended the data, so any long trend upward in forcing would be eliminated, and the natural oscillation of the 11 year solar forcing would be much more obvious.

[donsutherland1]

Again, that's assuming that there is no substantial error, which seems unlikely.

Dr. Hansen already allows for a substantial error: +/- 0.15 W/m². That's an error of more than 25%. So, he's not assuming unreasonable precision in his figure.

[Jonger]

Dr. Hansen already allows for a substantial error: +/- 0.15 W/m². That's an error of more than 25%. So, he's not assuming unreasonable precision in his figure.

Do you really think its possible to calculate that figure to the hundredth of a Watt? I would even question a tenth of a Watt.

[Snow_Miser]

Do you really think its possible to calculate that figure to the hundredth of a Watt? I would even question a tenth of a Watt.

They are measuring changes in the upper ocean's temperature by hundreths of a degree with one ARGO sensor accounting for 160,000 square kilometers of ocean. That does not scream an accuracy of +/- 0.15 w/m^2 to me by any means.

[donsutherland1]

Do you really think its possible to calculate that figure to the hundredth of a Watt? I would even question a tenth of a Watt.

One's calculations can yield hundredths or thousandths or even smaller units. Dr. Hansen is suggesting a large range in which the actual figure could fall and his key point is that a significant energy imbalance persisted. Even if one assumes a 99% level of confidence, the imbalance would be positive. One does not necessarily have to embrace his exact finding to have confidence in the overall idea that the earth maintained its energy imbalance through the deep solar minimum.

[Entropy]

I saw this over on Steve Goddard's blog. I don't usually cite Steve, but I thought this was pretty funny. This is the actual graphic below.

U.S. Temperatures Approaching Infinity in 2012

Source: http://data.giss.nas...hs_v3/Fig.D.gif

Tabular Data: http://data.giss.nas...hs_v3/Fig.D.txt

2006 1.2890 0.7766

2007 0.9280 0.6926

2008 0.1540 0.6276

2009 0.1820 0.5006

2010 0.5850 0.8220

2011 0.6540 *

2012 2.5350 *

[donsutherland1]

Don,

The cooling influence being 7-8 times larger than the cooling influence by the TSI Forcing during the downside of a solar cycle can not be explained by the positive forcing from anthropogenic sources.

In addition, Shaviv detrended the data, so any long trend upward in forcing would be eliminated, and the natural oscillation of the 11 year solar forcing would be much more obvious.

My issue with the paper doesn't concern the mechanism by which heat leaves the oceans (natural oceanic cycles). My issue concerns the heat entering the oceans. I believe his error is in concluding that the source of the heat that is not accounted for by TSI is an unnamed mechanism that amplifies the impact of TSI variations.

He wrote:

We thus conclude that the apparent oceanic flux variations must be the result of a large amount of heat of an external forcing, which periodically enters and leaves the oceans without being amplified by the atmosphere nor by an internal oceanic mode. This implies that the sun affexts climate through a mechanism other than TSI variations.

Anthropogenic forcings account for this "large amount of heat." As there is more heat than can be accounted for from solar forcing, more heat than can be accounted by that forcing is also emitted by the oceans through internal variability. Moreover, beyond this paper, the growing divergence between OHC and global temperatures and TSI demonstrate that the unnamed external forcing is growing more influential relative to solar forcing. That outcome is consistent with the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Finally, although I didn't mention it previously, some of his speculation is implausible. For example, he writes, "The third possibility is that the apparently large amounts of energy entering the oceans are actually fictitious."

[friedmators]

That's an interesting plot - thank you for sharing it with us. I just want to make sure I understand it. SInce it shows the rate of temperature rise, and the units are in degrees C/decade - for the Earth to be cooling the line would have to drop down into negative values - is that correct?

So the rate of global warming has recently stabilized at between 0.16 and 0.18 C/decade?

yes, negative values indicate cooling. Declining values indicate a slowing down of the warming.

[PhillipS]

I saw this over on Steve Goddard's blog. I don't usually cite Steve, but I thought this was pretty funny. This is the actual graphic below.

U.S. Temperatures Approaching Infinity in 2012

Source: http://data.giss.nas...hs_v3/Fig.D.gif

Tabular Data: http://data.giss.nas...hs_v3/Fig.D.txt

2006 1.2890 0.7766

2007 0.9280 0.6926

2008 0.1540 0.6276

2009 0.1820 0.5006

2010 0.5850 0.8220

2011 0.6540 *

2012 2.5350 *

So in the pseudo-skeptic community, a value of 2.5350 is considered to be "approaching infinity"? The pre-schoolers my wife teaches have a better grasp of infinity than that.

Kind of sad and pathetic that the best news the pseudo-skeptics can find these days is a chart error. But still, thank you for sharing.