ForecastTheFacts.Org

[WeatherRusty]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc...a good episode of the old show The West Wing. Anyway.

Could it be that the tendency has to do with CO2 levels? Maybe a very small amount but overall I'd say no and for the simple reason that the temperature at Nuuk shows no correlation with CO2 levels but a high correlation with AMO. So what is driving the AMO cycles and is there any effect CO2 has on the duration and intensity of those +AMO periods? You can compare the previous +AMO period to the current one and the previous one to the one previous of that but right now the current +AMO period isn't finished so there is no way to draw a definitive answer. Early indications are that this warming period isn't all that different from the last.

To answer you last question, if CO2 isn't having much of an effect curently than reducing CO2 will have little effect as well.

The warming trend is not equally distributed across the globe. No one place will correlate to CO2 increases. Some places have warmed more than others. Some places haven't warmed at all and some have cooled. The globe as a whole has warmed 0.74C during the past century and therein is to be found any correlation with CO2. The U.S. mainland and most of Greenland have warmed less than many other regions on the globe.

I ask you again, or anyone else who claims ocean oscillations can cause a warming trend over several cycles, where is the source of heat energy. If the oceans warm the atmosphere, then the oceans should cool in the process unless warmed even more by the Sun. However the Sun has not increased it's output over the past 40 years and the oceans are warmer, the very period representing modern global warming.

Where has the increased warmth come from over the past 40 years if the oceans are the cause? The oceans have not cooled and the Sun has not warmed.

[ben4vols]

The warming trend is not equally distributed across the globe. No one place will correlate to CO2 increases. Some places have warmed more than others. Some places haven't warmed at all and some have cooled. The globe as a whole has warmed 0.74C during the past century and therein is to be found any correlation with CO2. The U.S. mainland and most of Greenland have warmed less than many other regions on the globe.

That paragraph is very telling isn't it? You make it sound more like natural variation than CO2. If CO2 is a well mixed gas then one would expect it to have close to the same effect world wide. Either it enhances warming or it doesn't.

I ask you again, or anyone else who claims ocean oscillations can cause a warming trend over several cycles, where is the source of heat energy. If the oceans warm the atmosphere, then the oceans should cool in the process unless warmed even more by the Sun. However the Sun has not increased it's output over the past 40 years and the oceans are warmer, the very period representing modern global warming.

Where is your thought process breaking down? You are trying to correlate something (CO2) that has shown to have no correlation to temps in Greenland and you are downplaying a indices that has shown to have direct correlation with temps in Greenland. You could also be making incorrect assumptions about the role the sun has played in the last 40 years. Wouldn't it be more prudent to put CO2 on the back burner (when it comes to Greenland weather) and put the microscope on the inner workings of the Atlantic SST system? Also Greenland warmed around 1910 to 1920 and stayed warm for a decade or so, what caused the warming then?

[ben4vols]

BethesdaBoy was obsessed with the AMO stuff too: http://www.americanw...ch&fromsearch=1

so was his alter ego, physicsguy21: http://www.americanw...ch&fromsearch=1

I see Trixie is back for more character assassination instead of dealing with the topic at hand. Trixie, did you also downplay the PDO before it flipped?

:edit: I also find it funny that you constantly whine about people trolling and call for them to be banned yet you are probably one of the worst offenders. Yet again you pop in to a thread to troll and add nothing.

[LakeEffectKing]

The warming trend is not equally distributed across the globe. No one place will correlate to CO2 increases. Some places have warmed more than others. Some places haven't warmed at all and some have cooled. The globe as a whole has warmed 0.74C during the past century and therein is to be found any correlation with CO2. The U.S. mainland and most of Greenland have warmed less than many other regions on the globe.

I ask you again, or anyone else who claims ocean oscillations can cause a warming trend over several cycles, where is the source of heat energy. If the oceans warm the atmosphere, then the oceans should cool in the process unless warmed even more by the Sun. However the Sun has not increased it's output over the past 40 years and the oceans are warmer, the very period representing modern global warming.

Where has the increased warmth come from over the past 40 years if the oceans are the cause? The oceans have not cooled and the Sun has not warmed.

Hypothetically, the oceans can store vast amounts of "hidden" (or unmeasurable to any certain degree of certainty) heat/energy, and release it at will (deep oceanic heat transport is certainly not understood "well"). So (again, hypothetically) the oceans could have released some of this surplus energy early in the century, and then released a higher amount of this surplus energy later in the century, giving the false sense that the oceans "added" heat to the atmosphere over many cycles.....again, just hypothetically trying to offer some possibility....I'm not subscribing to that opinion.

[WeatherRusty]

Hypothetically, the oceans can store vast amounts of "hidden" (or unmeasurable to any certain degree of certainty) heat/energy, and release it at will (deep oceanic heat transport is certainly not understood "well"). So (again, hypothetically) the oceans could have released some of this surplus energy early in the century, and then released a higher amount of this surplus energy later in the century, giving the false sense that the oceans "added" heat to the atmosphere over many cycles.....again, just hypothetically trying to offer some possibility....I'm not subscribing to that opinion.

Thanks LEK,

The thing is, the ocean temperature profile indicates decreasing temperature with increasing depth. So, when water is welled up by wind driven currents from deeper water, that water will be colder than the Sun warmed water it replaces at the surface. In the tropics the Easterlies push the warmer water westward, while towards the east it is cooler. Once at the surface, the cooler water is warmed by the Sun, but remains somewhat cooler than when water at the surface which is more stagnant due to weaker wind surface friction (less overturning). If the deeper water is just a bit warmer than decades earlier, then once at the surface it will begin it's Sun warmed journey from a higher base temperature. Thus we observe successive ocean oscillations and ENSO to be gradually warming.

It is not a false impression that the oceans added heat to the atmosphere. The surface IS what warms the atmosphere.

[WeatherRusty]

That paragraph is very telling isn't it? You make it sound more like natural variation than CO2. If CO2 is a well mixed gas then one would expect it to have close to the same effect world wide. Either it enhances warming or it doesn't.

Where is your thought process breaking down? You are trying to correlate something (CO2) that has shown to have no correlation to temps in Greenland and you are downplaying a indices that has shown to have direct correlation with temps in Greenland. You could also be making incorrect assumptions about the role the sun has played in the last 40 years. Wouldn't it be more prudent to put CO2 on the back burner (when it comes to Greenland weather) and put the microscope on the inner workings of the Atlantic SST system? Also Greenland warmed around 1910 to 1920 and stayed warm for a decade or so, what caused the warming then?

What I am saying is that CO2 can correlate only to the global mean temperature, not to localized and regional conditions. The greenhouse effect is not of the same strength everywhere on Earth. In general it is strongest in the tropics and weakest near the poles. It is increasing most in the arctic as warmer temps release more water vapor. Water vapor does the heavy lifting in producing the greenhouse effect, CO2 is the long term stage or scaffolding which props up and supports the greenhouse effect at current level.

So far as Greenland is concerned, of course the most proximate cause of it's temperature fluctuation is due to advection off a warmer +AMO. Heat transport and thus a given regional climate is first and foremost a function of wind and ocean currents. Why you expect a direct correlation with CO2 as CO2 warms the globe confuses me.

[Jonger]

http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2012/05/survey_fuel_economy_no_1_conce.html

80% say 55mpg government mandate is necessary. That shocks me actually.

[SVT450R]

BethesdaBoy was obsessed with the AMO stuff too: http://www.americanw...ch&fromsearch=1

so was his alter ego, physicsguy21: http://www.americanw...ch&fromsearch=1

[Jonger]

In her opinion Bethesdaboy is the equivalent of a terrorist trying to enter an airport.

[A-L-E-K]

the board's policy on banned posters coming back under socks is pretty clear

[Srain]

the board's policy on banned posters coming back under socks is pretty clear

And if there was any proof it would have been dealt with swiftly. Moving on.

[SVT450R]

In her opinion Bethesdaboy is the equivalent of a terrorist trying to enter an airport.

[FPizz]

he's clearly hacking his way into another IP. the person he's pretending to be never had any interest in climate at eastern, and also never posted here until BB was banned again. and he only posts in the CC forum now, regurgitating BB nonsense.

it's only a matter of time before he starts on the magnetic sun stuff again.

Thanks Matlock

[ben4vols]

So far as Greenland is concerned, of course the most proximate cause of it's temperature fluctuation is due to advection off a warmer +AMO. Heat transport and thus a given regional climate is first and foremost a function of wind and ocean currents. Why you expect a direct correlation with CO2 as CO2 warms the globe confuses me.

It confuses me that some people want to be rather alarmist concerning Greenland melting and trying to imply CO2 has played a large part in it.

[TerryM]

It confuses me that some people want to be rather alarmist concerning Greenland melting and trying to imply CO2 has played a large part in it.

I assume by some people you mean the 97% of climate scientists that have actually studied various aspects of the subject.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

It confuses me that some people want to be rather alarmist concerning Greenland melting and trying to imply CO2 has played a large part in it.

The world has warmed 0.5C over that during the last +AMO. Since the AMO can not produce heat, where did the additional warmth come from? Science say it has come mostly from accumulating atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If the world is half a degree warmer than 60 years ago, wouldn't you consider that to be a factor in the melting of the cryosphere, including Greenland's ice sheets? Shouldn't the cryosphere be melting at a greater rate than it was back then?

[ben4vols]

I assume by some people you mean the 97% of climate scientists that have actually studied various aspects of the subject.

Terry

I don't think 97% of climate scientists are of the alarmist variety.

[LakeEffectKing]

The world has warmed 0.5C over that during the last +AMO. Since the AMO can not produce heat, where did the additional warmth come from? Science say it has come mostly from accumulating atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If the world is half a degree warmer than 60 years ago, wouldn't you consider that to be a factor in the melting of the cryosphere, including Greenland's ice sheets? Shouldn't the cryosphere be melting at a greater rate than it was back then?

Rusty,

Why can't the oceans release more heat during different +AMO regimes?? I don't think A.) the accuracy of the AMO index back in the 19th and early 20th centuries can be overly relied upon to draw the conclusions that you are insinuating (that the AMO is a reliable proxy for oceanic energy release)....and B.) that the phase and strength of the AMO correlate adequately to judge previous heat releases by the global oceans as a whole. Do you see what I'm saying???

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty,

Why can't the oceans release more heat during different +AMO regimes?? I don't think A.) the accuracy of the AMO index back in the 19th and early 20th centuries can be overly relied upon to draw the conclusions that you are insinuating (that the AMO is a reliable proxy for oceanic energy release)....and B.) that the phase and strength of the AMO correlate adequately to judge previous heat releases by the global oceans as a whole. Do you see what I'm saying???

SSTs which are warmer do release more heat to the atmosphere, but in doing so, everything else remaining equal, the oceans will be cooled in the process. However, the oceans have not cooled, they have warmed along with the whole system. The energy release from the ocean's surface is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature.

Physics demands that a warmer surface will radiate at a higher rate. Physics also demands that as a body radiates away energy, it cools in the process. We don't have to know the phase of ocean cycles to know whether in the past they released more or less heat. All we need to know is the SST at any given time.

[LakeEffectKing]

SSTs which are warmer do release more heat to the atmosphere, but in doing so, everything else remaining equal, the oceans will be cooled in the process. However, the oceans have not cooled, they have warmed along with the whole system. The energy release from the ocean's surface is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature.

Physics demands that a warmer surface will radiate at a higher rate. Physics also demands that as a body radiates away energy, it cools in the process. We don't have to know the phase of ocean cycles to know whether in the past they released more or less heat. All we need to know is the SST at any given time.

And knowing the SST's (globally) is a MUCH easier (thus more accurate) today than a century ago (kinda like my point re: the AMO, but even moreso) That said, I cede your point, to a certain extent. How the deep ocean plays in all this looms rather large IMO, as to the ultimate story of energy storage/fluxes of all the waters on the planet. I highly suspect the oceans (as a 3 dimensional whole) act much more as a buffer to rapid global air temps, then most suspect.

[ben4vols]

The world has warmed 0.5C over that during the last +AMO. Since the AMO can not produce heat, where did the additional warmth come from? Science say it has come mostly from accumulating atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If the world is half a degree warmer than 60 years ago, wouldn't you consider that to be a factor in the melting of the cryosphere, including Greenland's ice sheets? Shouldn't the cryosphere be melting at a greater rate than it was back then?

I'm not debating the importance of AMO to global temperatures, I'm saying that the AMO has a direct influence on Greenland temps. How is there more melting when temps are comparable to the last +AMO cycle in Greenland?

[ben4vols]

However, the oceans have not cooled, they have warmed along with the whole system. The energy release from the ocean's surface is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature.

That isn't totally true. Over the last 17 years the Pacific has cooled, the Southern has cooled, the Indian has warmed very little and the Atlantic and Arctic have warmed significantly. According to Bob Tisdale's research 75% of the oceans haven't warmed over the last 17 years.

[Jonger]

I assume by some people you mean the 97% of climate scientists that have actually studied various aspects of the subject.

Terry

How many of those climate scientists just decided to get into climate science out of the blue and with no agenda or political ideology... My guess is less then 1%.

We are debating a HIGHLY economic and civilization changing topic.

There are two possible scenarios at play:

Scenario 1= We shut down fossil fuel sources today.

Scenario 2= We continue on the current path (which is gradually moving to Scenario 1 in the developed world)

The first scenario isn't possible today without starvation and mass suffering of the human race. This is all for reducing a theoretical warming that was already theorized to be much greater then currently we are experiencing. Tough Sell.....

The second scenario is logically going to be the path we will all choice, minus fringe internet posters and PUBLICLY funded scientists who only exist by trying to make a case for scenario 1.

Climate science is highly political and those who HATE our current world economic structure can only change it through scenario 1, those people will make a good funding push to keep those scientists in the news and funding in place.

[PhillipS]

That isn't totally true. Over the last 17 years the Pacific has cooled, the Southern has cooled, the Indian has warmed very little and the Atlantic and Arctic have warmed significantly. According to Bob Tisdale's research 75% of the oceans haven't warmed over the last 17 years.

Was Tisdale's research peer-reviewed and published? And, if so, could you please provide a link to it? I did a quick scan with Google Scholar - didn't find anything but I could easily have missed it.

I did find one interesting article, "World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010", Levitus et al 2012. The abstract:

We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10

²²

J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m

⁻²

(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m

⁻²

per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10

²²

J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m

⁻²

(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr

⁻¹

for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr

⁻¹

for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

As you can see from the figures, this study clearly contradicts your assertion that 75% of the oceans haven't warmed in 17 years. Tisdale is a well known denialist with a track record of shoddy work. Why do you find him credible? .

[FPizz]

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/

Here is a link to Bob Tisdale. A quick search pulled this up.

[WeatherRusty]

How many of those climate scientists just decided to get into climate science out of the blue and with no agenda or political ideology... My guess is less then 1%.

We are debating a HIGHLY economic and civilization changing topic.

There are two possible scenarios at play:

Scenario 1= We shut down fossil fuel sources today.

Scenario 2= We continue on the current path (which is gradually moving to Scenario 1 in the developed world)

The first scenario isn't possible today without starvation and mass suffering of the human race. This is all for reducing a theoretical warming that was already theorized to be much greater then currently we are experiencing. Tough Sell.....

The second scenario is logically going to be the path we will all choice, minus fringe internet posters and PUBLICLY funded scientists who only exist by trying to make a case for scenario 1.

Climate science is highly political and those who HATE our current world economic structure can only change it through scenario 1, those people will make a good funding push to keep those scientists in the news and funding in place.

I regard Scenario 1 as a strawman. I have never heard of anyone wishing to shut down fossil fuel sources as you put it. What we need to do is invest in advanced, clean, renewable energy sources so they can reduce the rate at which we utilize fossil fuels. The only sane people who disagree with this strategy are the fossil fuel industries as they logically view this as cutting into their domination of energy markets. Who in their right mind would not wish to advance our energy supply through diversification, modernization and efficiencies? Do we always have to wait for a crisis situation to develop in order to do the right thing?

The only realistic reason to denounce climate science is because of it's ramifications for energy use and the sources we should choose. If it weren't for government mandates and economic implications, very few would have reason to doubt a science as obscure as the study of climate change. Arguing with the ideologically biased general public over scientific matters is not the strength of a representative republic or democracy. The science can be misconstrued, misrepresented and trashed by anyone or any group with impunity for reasons having nothing to do with the intrinsic validity of the science.

[ben4vols]

Tisdale isn't a reputable scientist. he 'publishes' at WAWT and at climateaudit.com.

more BethesdaBoy crap 'science' sources.

Troll

[ben4vols]

As you can see from the figures, this study clearly contradicts your assertion that 75% of the oceans haven't warmed in 17 years. Tisdale is a well known denialist with a track record of shoddy work. Why do you find him credible? .

Tisdale is very up front with his data and sources. If you want to create your own plots and refute his findings I'd be interested in seeing it.

[PhillipS]

https://bobtisdale.w...-past-17-years/

Here is a link to Bob Tisdale. A quick search pulled this up.

That's not peer-reviewed research - that's just a blog post. And even a cursory read shows disingenuous chartsmanship that would set off alarm bells for any honest skeptic. As soon as you see cherrypicked analysis periods and ad hoc changes to baselines you know the intent was dishonest. It wouldn't pass peer-review if he tried to publish it.

Here is a plot of global SST anomalies since the start of the instrumental record. It's from Knudsen at al 2011

As opposed to a blog post where the author can can anything, true or fictional, this paper was peer-reviewed. Can you see the difference?

[PhillipS]

Troll

Nope, Wxtrix is correct - Tisdale is not a reputable scientist. Check for yourself - go to google scholar and look for his peer-reviewed publications. INstead of real research Tisdale chooses to write blog posts where he can say whatever he wants and never has to correct his errors.

That way nasty old reality never gets in the way.