Now we know who pays our trolls

[Jonger]

I'm interested to know something.

I would like those with pro-AGW viewpoints to list their past of present professions.

I wonder how many of you are climate scientists or professors in the field.

I have stated before that I have no vested interest professionally with this topic.

[Jonger]

this doesn't even make sense

Read it again and this time try to drop the snarky attitude.

[Vergent]

more on what Heartland is spending money on:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/sceptics-ad-compares-climate-change-believers-to-terrorists-20120507-1y9e4.html

[ben4vols]

There has been no lack of studies involving this question. These studies utilize for example, paleoclimate, volcanic eruptions and computer simulations to arrive at their estimates.

The so called Charney sensitivity value range is 1.5C to 4.5C and is supported by studies such as can be found doing a Google search for scholarly studies.

Yeah I'm good on all that. I guess my question was more where do you stand (closer to the 1.5C or 4.5C) and why?

Good article by Dr. Spencer on this from a few months ago. LINK TO FULL ARTICLE.

As can be seen, in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet, most if not all temperature datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago:

So what is happening? You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming.

The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I don’t think there is a certain number of years – 5, 10, 20, etc. – which will disprove the science of AGW….unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.

[WeatherRusty]

Yeah I'm good on all that. I guess my question was more where do you stand (closer to the 1.5C or 4.5C) and why?

Good article by Dr. Spencer on this from a few months ago. LINK TO FULL ARTICLE.

I see no reason to choose any value over the others within the range deemed most likely. If I had a gun pointed at my head I would lean toward the statistically most likely value being near 3C.

The difficulty lies with the idea the the Earth is currently significantly out of energy balance. The figures representing likely climate sensitivity are equilibrium values. So, what is happening now tells us little about the final outcome. So long as a positive energy imbalance is detected, the Earth will be forced to warm....how much and by when....???????????

The first four of Dr. Spencer's possibilities all represent valid uncertainties which complicate the picture.

[ben4vols]

Would a climate sensitivity of 3C be reflective in the graphs from Dr. Spencer?

[WeatherRusty]

Would a climate sensitivity of 3C be reflective in the graphs from Dr. Spencer?

No, but neither would the entire instrumental record.

It would take about 500 years to reach 3C at the rate implied by the instrumental surface record and probably longer because about 0.1C of that was solar induced. If only it were that easy to deduce equilibrium climate sensitivity we would already have the answer!

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have always had an issue with the peer reviewing credibility when dealing with AGW. This is a field of science with a strong counter viewpoint and its obviously in climate scientists best interest to only give the stamp of approval to what gels with their goals. The pro-AGW posters here act like we are crazy for questioning this.

You offer nothing and say this? Really? You speak of "FIELD OF SCIENCE WITH A STRONG COUNTER VIEWPOINT".

But offer NOTHING to back it up. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I impore you, beg you to back this statement up.

You come back here and debate me one on one, two guys with no formal education in climate science or any science(at least for me). And show this or any field of science with a STRONG counter viewpoint against what we already believe is right. Just provide the evidence, logical and practical connection(with multiple lines of fitting evidence). The published peer reviewed work in these fields, or your own, not anyone else's view on these things(adding data and reasoning for your assertions).

Your a Man, step up and act like one, put your honor and dignity on the line back your claims.

[Roger Smith]

I think that as a scientific question, removed from all political aspects, the AGW theory can be seen to have over-estimated the scale of global warming in its general pronouncements from the period before 2000, when we were hearing about runaway warming scenarios and global increases in the range of 3 to 5 degrees leading to catastrophic melting and other negative impacts. Any fair-minded assessment of the data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

would show that the two basic facts of "global warming" in practice (as opposed to theory) are these (bearing in mind that the "normal" for the data set is 1951-80):

(1) The global climate warmed gradually after 1920 and after a peak of about +0.1 C around 1940, then underwent a series of oscillations that began to show an upward trend in the late 1970s that continued in the 1980s.

(2) Since the late 1980s the warming reached a plateau around +0.5 C in the strong El Nino event of 1997-98, after which it has remained very close to steady-state by the numbers.

I can easily back up the second of these observations by simply listing the global averages for the past fifteen years in five-year segments:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

I don't see any sign of an accelerated warming in any of these data. We are told to expect a warming of at least 1.2 degrees but the trend line is pointing lower than that. In very broad, general terms, this is why the "modified skeptical" position (that taken by myself and others, saying that while the basic science is acceptable, the real-world result of the complex interaction of human activity and natural variability may well be shown to be less extreme than the AGW theory) is valid, realistic and from a purely scientific point of view, just as deserving of a place in any debate as other viewpoints. On the merits of the observed temperatures, which are from a data set not questioned by the AGW proponents, the best estimate of what is really happening is that human activity is forcing an upward trend on a chaotic system that has variability of about one Celsius degree in this climatic era (on the global inter-annual scale) and that at present, the result is a steady-state climate that is half a degree warmer than the average from a period considered to be the natural climatic mean.

As this debate is mainly important as an adjunct to political decision making, I believe that it serves the public interest in all countries to observe that we do not possess any reliable indications of catastrophic climate change underway, and that if the past ten years are any indication, winter is not dead (that is really a large part of the public debate, and was driving European public opinion until a series of colder winters starting in 2009). The obvious paradigm that will lead public opinion is, can we live with the changes in climate change? That, even if we accept that they are all due to human activity, which is far from obvious and in my estimation often greatly exaggerated for effect -- every drought, every heat wave, every anomaly of every kind is often packaged up by the AGW lobby as proof of human interference with some non-existent "climate equilibrium" that just about every practising forecaster in the community realizes is 90% political hype and 10% actual science. There is no credible evidence for increasing levels of severe weather, let alone due to any cause, the data supporting an increase are tenuous and contradicted by so many obvious examples (the 1930s heat waves, for example) that many are surprised the theory of catastrophic climate change is even acceptable any longer in scientific circles.

In my opinion, it is time for the science to take a new approach based on the real numbers and the real trends. All we have here is a slight warming and most of the other features of climate change (increased severe storms, heat waves, droughts) are overblown hype. Daily record temperatures are sure to fall from time to time, but the frequency and the severity are not out of line with historical trends.

And as a disclaimer I can state that I am not receiving any funds from anybody for saying any of this, nor would I expect to do so. This is merely how I interpret the data before us. If there are no objections to the data set, then I would challenge more strident AGW proponents to show me where this data set creates alarm about substantial potential for melting of polar ice. To my mind, the situation at present is so fragile that any large-scale natural cooling trend could easily overwhelm this modest warming and return us to the colder climate of the 19th century. We don't really know what lies ahead, but the trends to 2011 are no real cause for alarm. And when you consider what has been done as a result of premature and overblown alarmist rhetoric -- the increases in food prices, the dislocations in the energy sector from ill-advised solar and wind experiments, the lack of economic reality -- the theory as applied to politics has done far more harm than good.

Anyway, consider that my opening for a debate, and I will ignore the personal "ad hominem" style attacks that often follow although I would note that these tend to underline the point that AGW is not a very impressive example of high-level science on its track record from 1980 to present time. And it's time the community realized that before correction comes in from outside the field, because I am sure better scientists from more challenging disciplines like astronomy or theoretical physics will start to investigate these matters without the community's political biases, and that end result will not be pretty for puffed-up climate science.

[TerryM]

Roger

Don't think you'll run into too many ad-hominems, but it is easier when only one assertion is made per post. Lumping a bunch of them together makes debate more difficult.

Terry

[SVT450R]

I think that as a scientific question, removed from all political aspects, the AGW theory can be seen to have over-estimated the scale of global warming in its general pronouncements from the period before 2000, when we were hearing about runaway warming scenarios and global increases in the range of 3 to 5 degrees leading to catastrophic melting and other negative impacts. Any fair-minded assessment of the data

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

would show that the two basic facts of "global warming" in practice (as opposed to theory) are these (bearing in mind that the "normal" for the data set is 1951-80):

(1) The global climate warmed gradually after 1920 and after a peak of about +0.1 C around 1940, then underwent a series of oscillations that began to show an upward trend in the late 1970s that continued in the 1980s.

(2) Since the late 1980s the warming reached a plateau around +0.5 C in the strong El Nino event of 1997-98, after which it has remained very close to steady-state by the numbers.

I can easily back up the second of these observations by simply listing the global averages for the past fifteen years in five-year segments:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

I don't see any sign of an accelerated warming in any of these data. We are told to expect a warming of at least 1.2 degrees but the trend line is pointing lower than that. In very broad, general terms, this is why the "modified skeptical" position (that taken by myself and others, saying that while the basic science is acceptable, the real-world result of the complex interaction of human activity and natural variability may well be shown to be less extreme than the AGW theory) is valid, realistic and from a purely scientific point of view, just as deserving of a place in any debate as other viewpoints. On the merits of the observed temperatures, which are from a data set not questioned by the AGW proponents, the best estimate of what is really happening is that human activity is forcing an upward trend on a chaotic system that has variability of about one Celsius degree in this climatic era (on the global inter-annual scale) and that at present, the result is a steady-state climate that is half a degree warmer than the average from a period considered to be the natural climatic mean.

As this debate is mainly important as an adjunct to political decision making, I believe that it serves the public interest in all countries to observe that we do not possess any reliable indications of catastrophic climate change underway, and that if the past ten years are any indication, winter is not dead (that is really a large part of the public debate, and was driving European public opinion until a series of colder winters starting in 2009). The obvious paradigm that will lead public opinion is, can we live with the changes in climate change? That, even if we accept that they are all due to human activity, which is far from obvious and in my estimation often greatly exaggerated for effect -- every drought, every heat wave, every anomaly of every kind is often packaged up by the AGW lobby as proof of human interference with some non-existent "climate equilibrium" that just about every practising forecaster in the community realizes is 90% political hype and 10% actual science. There is no credible evidence for increasing levels of severe weather, let alone due to any cause, the data supporting an increase are tenuous and contradicted by so many obvious examples (the 1930s heat waves, for example) that many are surprised the theory of catastrophic climate change is even acceptable any longer in scientific circles.

In my opinion, it is time for the science to take a new approach based on the real numbers and the real trends. All we have here is a slight warming and most of the other features of climate change (increased severe storms, heat waves, droughts) are overblown hype. Daily record temperatures are sure to fall from time to time, but the frequency and the severity are not out of line with historical trends.

And as a disclaimer I can state that I am not receiving any funds from anybody for saying any of this, nor would I expect to do so. This is merely how I interpret the data before us. If there are no objections to the data set, then I would challenge more strident AGW proponents to show me where this data set creates alarm about substantial potential for melting of polar ice. To my mind, the situation at present is so fragile that any large-scale natural cooling trend could easily overwhelm this modest warming and return us to the colder climate of the 19th century. We don't really know what lies ahead, but the trends to 2011 are no real cause for alarm. And when you consider what has been done as a result of premature and overblown alarmist rhetoric -- the increases in food prices, the dislocations in the energy sector from ill-advised solar and wind experiments, the lack of economic reality -- the theory as applied to politics has done far more harm than good.

Anyway, consider that my opening for a debate, and I will ignore the personal "ad hominem" style attacks that often follow although I would note that these tend to underline the point that AGW is not a very impressive example of high-level science on its track record from 1980 to present time. And it's time the community realized that before correction comes in from outside the field, because I am sure better scientists from more challenging disciplines like astronomy or theoretical physics will start to investigate these matters without the community's political biases, and that end result will not be pretty for puffed-up climate science.

Excellent post Roger good to see you on this side of the forum.

[WeatherRusty]

I think that as a scientific question, removed from all political aspects, the AGW theory can be seen to have over-estimated the scale of global warming in its general pronouncements from the period before 2000, when we were hearing about runaway warming scenarios and global increases in the range of 3 to 5 degrees leading to catastrophic melting and other negative impacts. Any fair-minded assessment of the data

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

would show that the two basic facts of "global warming" in practice (as opposed to theory) are these (bearing in mind that the "normal" for the data set is 1951-80):

(1) The global climate warmed gradually after 1920 and after a peak of about +0.1 C around 1940, then underwent a series of oscillations that began to show an upward trend in the late 1970s that continued in the 1980s.

(2) Since the late 1980s the warming reached a plateau around +0.5 C in the strong El Nino event of 1997-98, after which it has remained very close to steady-state by the numbers.

I can easily back up the second of these observations by simply listing the global averages for the past fifteen years in five-year segments:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

I don't see any sign of an accelerated warming in any of these data. We are told to expect a warming of at least 1.2 degrees but the trend line is pointing lower than that. In very broad, general terms, this is why the "modified skeptical" position (that taken by myself and others, saying that while the basic science is acceptable, the real-world result of the complex interaction of human activity and natural variability may well be shown to be less extreme than the AGW theory) is valid, realistic and from a purely scientific point of view, just as deserving of a place in any debate as other viewpoints. On the merits of the observed temperatures, which are from a data set not questioned by the AGW proponents, the best estimate of what is really happening is that human activity is forcing an upward trend on a chaotic system that has variability of about one Celsius degree in this climatic era (on the global inter-annual scale) and that at present, the result is a steady-state climate that is half a degree warmer than the average from a period considered to be the natural climatic mean.

As this debate is mainly important as an adjunct to political decision making, I believe that it serves the public interest in all countries to observe that we do not possess any reliable indications of catastrophic climate change underway, and that if the past ten years are any indication, winter is not dead (that is really a large part of the public debate, and was driving European public opinion until a series of colder winters starting in 2009). The obvious paradigm that will lead public opinion is, can we live with the changes in climate change? That, even if we accept that they are all due to human activity, which is far from obvious and in my estimation often greatly exaggerated for effect -- every drought, every heat wave, every anomaly of every kind is often packaged up by the AGW lobby as proof of human interference with some non-existent "climate equilibrium" that just about every practising forecaster in the community realizes is 90% political hype and 10% actual science. There is no credible evidence for increasing levels of severe weather, let alone due to any cause, the data supporting an increase are tenuous and contradicted by so many obvious examples (the 1930s heat waves, for example) that many are surprised the theory of catastrophic climate change is even acceptable any longer in scientific circles.

In my opinion, it is time for the science to take a new approach based on the real numbers and the real trends. All we have here is a slight warming and most of the other features of climate change (increased severe storms, heat waves, droughts) are overblown hype. Daily record temperatures are sure to fall from time to time, but the frequency and the severity are not out of line with historical trends.

And as a disclaimer I can state that I am not receiving any funds from anybody for saying any of this, nor would I expect to do so. This is merely how I interpret the data before us. If there are no objections to the data set, then I would challenge more strident AGW proponents to show me where this data set creates alarm about substantial potential for melting of polar ice. To my mind, the situation at present is so fragile that any large-scale natural cooling trend could easily overwhelm this modest warming and return us to the colder climate of the 19th century. We don't really know what lies ahead, but the trends to 2011 are no real cause for alarm. And when you consider what has been done as a result of premature and overblown alarmist rhetoric -- the increases in food prices, the dislocations in the energy sector from ill-advised solar and wind experiments, the lack of economic reality -- the theory as applied to politics has done far more harm than good.

Anyway, consider that my opening for a debate, and I will ignore the personal "ad hominem" style attacks that often follow although I would note that these tend to underline the point that AGW is not a very impressive example of high-level science on its track record from 1980 to present time. And it's time the community realized that before correction comes in from outside the field, because I am sure better scientists from more challenging disciplines like astronomy or theoretical physics will start to investigate these matters without the community's political biases, and that end result will not be pretty for puffed-up climate science.

AGW theory is not predicated on historial data or current trends. The expected range of outcome is not altered by what is currently occuring or what has occurred in the recent past. As much as we may like to falsify theoretical expectations with current or otherwise cherry-picked time periods, and as long as only atmospheric temperature trends are the chosen benchmark, there will be apparent disparity between theory and observation. When the whole body of evidence is applied to analysis a different picture emerges. The Earth continues to absorb more radient energy from the Sun than it is radiating back to space. The implications of this are unavoidable. The Earth's near surface is continuing to accumulate energy and warm.

None of this in any way changes the physical basis for AGW or the estimated range for likely equilibrium climate senstivity. A 1.2C Planck response to a doubling of CO2 before feedback, or a ~2C - 4.5C final outcome with feedback to the same net forcing.

[TerryM]

Roger

Am I correct in assuming that your doubts are based on the giss record and a gut feeling that the Arctic is about to return to historic levels?

Terry

[Roger Smith]

I've always felt that the subject was basically too complex to proceed with the sorts of assumptions that have been in the forefront since the AGW period began, but most glacial periods have followed warming in the arctic, so I just don't accept the theory as stated that we will inevitably see runaway warming from a partial meltdown in the arctic -- the antarctic clearly isn't even responding at all to the AGW signal with no signs of any real trends and some indications of increasing southern ice. What happened in 2007-08 may be the first of several large oscillations that will come and go in a process that sees the arctic losing ice cover as a trend but certain periods becoming more rather than less cold in n.h. winters. And to add to all that uncertainty, there is no absolute way to determine whether it's the greenhouse gas increase or natural variability behind these changes, although I am certainly willing to accept that in a steady state atmosphere (one with no natural variability) the trend ought to be gradually upward. The fact that it has apparently stalled out since 1998 suggests to me that we might be entering a period of natural cooling or at least higher variability. The big unknown remains whether circulation changes are large-scale or whether the naturally forced circulation tries to maintain most of its integrity while being warmed. The evidence so far seems to suggest a complex mix of these. I may not have come right out and said this, but I feel it is rather presumptuous to make confident sounding predictions of what will happen decades from now given the state of play in long-range forecasting. We are getting a bit better on the seasonal scale but there is no demonstrated track record of accurate 5-20 year forecasts and when I go back over statements I made 5-20 years ago, I find that I am so far on the right track in saying that trends will not be very far from steady state on that time scale, although I am not basing this on any sort of modelling or theory beyond the basic assumption that natural variability remains in control.

Anyway, we can all make whatever predictions we want about trends from now to 2030 (anything beyond that assumes an understanding of future technology trends etc) but we won't know which of these forecasts are right or wrong until then. FWIW, my own expectation is that there will be a major El Nino warming episode again some time later this decade, a gradual return to more active solar conditions, and that this global temperature index might rise a few more tenths to around 0.8 or even 1.0 ... that would not surprise me, but neither would any outcome between a back-off to 0.3 or an advance to 1.2 ... anything outside those would indicate (to me anyway) that we were either into a large-scale natural cooling (for <0.3) or a better performance of the AGW original hypothesis despite initial doubts (>1.2). I can also understand the sentiment that says we should not take chances, but I feel that some of our political responses fall into that category as well, so it's a very complicated question that we are facing. I am not sure that we have taken the right fork in the road based on what we know, and while the wrong decision might have been understandable from where things stood in 1990 or even 2000, I am not so sure it is totally understandable given the data since then.

[FPizz]

so essentially you're just another waste of space in this forum, another person who rejects science, blah blah blah blah blah.

re: the bolded: how is a counter-factual statement "a fact"?

Great post as usual. Talk about waste of space.

[SVT450R]

Great post as usual. Talk about waste of space.

Trixie should be moderator for climate change forum.

[dabize]

Trixie should be moderator for climate change forum.

Maybe it would cut down on the trolling.........a positive change for those of us who are actually interested in discussing reality.

For the trolls, however, I can see that there would be a downside........

[dabize]

The reason you all are getting such a cool reception by Trix and the other scientifically-minded people here is that you refuse to acknowledge the larger point made by Rusty above - to wit:

"The Earth continues to absorb more radient energy from the Sun than it is radiating back to space. The implications of this are unavoidable. The Earth's near surface is continuing to accumulate energy and warm. A 1.2C Planck response to a doubling of CO2 before feedback, or a ~2C - 4.5C final outcome with feedback to the same net forcing."

In a world where this is true (e.g. this one), lengthy considerations of the minutiae of how the added heat is distributed (i.e. exactly how it manifests itself in short term weather patterns) don't amount to much, especially when they are warped so as to hide any actual indications of AGW.

They obfuscate, derail serious conversations, and are obnoxious. They are trolling.

[SVT450R]

Maybe it would cut down on the trolling.........a positive change for those of us who are actually interested in discussing reality.

For the trolls, however, I can see that there would be a downside........

Nowadays it seems anyone that isn't on the AGW side is considered a troll to you all. This is a forum for discussion last time i checked AGW is still a theory not a fact.

[SVT450R]

there's zero reason to discuss non-science in this subforum. the stuff I referenced in that post has been continually refuted here. if you have actual, peer-reviewed science to introduce into the discussion, great. but there's no room here for discredited political talking points.

and evolution is a theory too. do you deny that as well?

So pointing out that the warming trend has slowed should not be discussed and is considered trolling.

[TerryM]

Nowadays it seems anyone that isn't on the AGW side is considered a troll to you all. This is a forum for discussion last time i checked AGW is still a theory not a fact.

I think it's more the ones that bring nothing to the table, or regurgitate arguments that have repeatedly been proven wrong that are assumed to be trolling. When new data is introduced, I think it's usually given a fair hearing.

Dabize pointed out recently that AIR was indicating methane emissions from southern Greenland - a very different statement than someone blathering that CH4 simply can't be a factor in global warming.

Arctic CH4 may or may not prove to be a factor in global temperatures going forward, but one line of questioning the data adds to the debate while the other doesn't.

To me that's the essence of trolling - adding nothing new while distracting from the subject of a thread.

Terry

[SVT450R]

it is trolling for as it's not true for reasons that have been explained right in this thread.

So the flat line is just imaginary?

[TerryM]

Wasn't Roger's contention that "it has apparently stalled out since 1998", and doesn't your graph disprove this?

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

So the flat line is just imaginary?

The rate of LT warming over the past decade or so has slowed. No question about that, but what assumptions can be drawn from that observation? Does it mean that the theory of AGW is falsified? Because that essentially is what is being suggested by the tone of the skeptical argument.

AGW does not preclude the action of natural variability from slowing the trend, or increasing it for that matter. CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. There are many others, but CO2 is the one changing significantly long term. Solar variability can impose a 0.1C variance in global temp. ENSO a few tenths. The amount of aerosols and the changing arctic albedo and NH snow cover. We don't understand them all that well, and neither do we understand the varied and myriad interactions.

Acknowledging uncertainty in the climate system does not mean we lack clear understanding in certain particulars. Science is nearly certain that a doubling of CO2 will produce a radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 and that this translates to a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence on the surface. Simply because the temperature of the lower troposphere does not follow a linear trend is not reason to doubt the final outcome. The physics will perform as expected, it's just a matter of time and positive phasing with other forcing agents.

Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas, providing 50% or so of the total greenhouse effect, followed by about 25% attributed to clouds. Specific humidity will certainly increase given a warmer ocean surface and lower atmosphere and thus add to the greenhouse effect, essentially doubling the warming effect from doubling CO2 alone. Some of this should be negated by more lower cloud amount and the lapse rate feedback, but the net forcing is expected to be in the positive direction thus adding to the initial 1.2C. Best estimates for how much warmer lie between 2C and 4.5C per 3.7W/m^2 of forcing at equilibrium. Hopefully it turns out to be closer to 2C, because we for near certain will double pre-industrial level (280ppm) by sometime mid 21st century. The full temperature response would require several further decades to reach equilibrium with radiative forcing. Likewise we are currently experiencing temperature supported by 1980s levels of CO2.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I've always felt that the subject was basically too complex to proceed with the sorts of assumptions that have been in the forefront since the AGW period began, but most glacial periods have followed warming in the arctic, so I just don't accept the theory as stated that we will inevitably see runaway warming from a partial meltdown in the arctic -- the antarctic clearly isn't even responding at all to the AGW signal with no signs of any real trends and some indications of increasing southern ice. What happened in 2007-08 may be the first of several large oscillations that will come and go in a process that sees the arctic losing ice cover as a trend but certain periods becoming more rather than less cold in n.h. winters. And to add to all that uncertainty, there is no absolute way to determine whether it's the greenhouse gas increase or natural variability behind these changes, although I am certainly willing to accept that in a steady state atmosphere (one with no natural variability) the trend ought to be gradually upward. The fact that it has apparently stalled out since 1998 suggests to me that we might be entering a period of natural cooling or at least higher variability. The big unknown remains whether circulation changes are large-scale or whether the naturally forced circulation tries to maintain most of its integrity while being warmed. The evidence so far seems to suggest a complex mix of these. I may not have come right out and said this, but I feel it is rather presumptuous to make confident sounding predictions of what will happen decades from now given the state of play in long-range forecasting. We are getting a bit better on the seasonal scale but there is no demonstrated track record of accurate 5-20 year forecasts and when I go back over statements I made 5-20 years ago, I find that I am so far on the right track in saying that trends will not be very far from steady state on that time scale, although I am not basing this on any sort of modelling or theory beyond the basic assumption that natural variability remains in control.

Anyway, we can all make whatever predictions we want about trends from now to 2030 (anything beyond that assumes an understanding of future technology trends etc) but we won't know which of these forecasts are right or wrong until then. FWIW, my own expectation is that there will be a major El Nino warming episode again some time later this decade, a gradual return to more active solar conditions, and that this global temperature index might rise a few more tenths to around 0.8 or even 1.0 ... that would not surprise me, but neither would any outcome between a back-off to 0.3 or an advance to 1.2 ... anything outside those would indicate (to me anyway) that we were either into a large-scale natural cooling (for <0.3) or a better performance of the AGW original hypothesis despite initial doubts (>1.2). I can also understand the sentiment that says we should not take chances, but I feel that some of our political responses fall into that category as well, so it's a very complicated question that we are facing. I am not sure that we have taken the right fork in the road based on what we know, and while the wrong decision might have been understandable from where things stood in 1990 or even 2000, I am not so sure it is totally understandable given the data since then.

Jan-March 0HC data is in and it shows 0-700M near last summer record peak. This was also during the end of the La Nina.

MEI:

2007 0.973 0.515 0.076 -0.049 0.156 -0.371 -0.334 -0.46 -1.169 -1.144 -1.179 -1.168

2008 -1.012 -1.398 -1.631 -0.942 -0.39 0.102 -0.047 -0.286 -0.653 -0.783 -0.625 -0.667

2009 -0.753 -0.715 -0.713 -0.159 0.355 0.939 0.929 0.934 0.762 1.018 1.061 1.007

2010 1.152 1.52 1.39 0.863 0.548 -0.466 -1.217 -1.849 -2.037 -1.948 -1.606 -1.58

2011 -1.678 -1.56 -1.559 -1.492 -0.368 -0.225 -0.147 -0.503 -0.772 -0.968 -0.98 -0.979

2012 -1.046 -0.702 -0.41 0.059

PDO:

2008** -1.00 -0.77 -0.71 -1.52 -1.37 -1.34 -1.67 -1.70 -1.55 -1.76 -1.25 -0.87

2009** -1.40 -1.55 -1.59 -1.65 -0.88 -0.31 -0.53 0.09 0.52 0.27 -0.40 0.08

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

AMO:

2009 -0.023 -0.128 -0.130 -0.094 -0.030 0.161 0.268 0.191 0.095 0.207 0.107 0.121

2010 0.077 0.210 0.322 0.466 0.495 0.485 0.491 0.568 0.490 0.366 0.278 0.249

2011 0.181 0.143 0.091 0.128 0.181 0.215 0.135 0.189 0.192 0.103 -0.035 -0.011

2012 -0.032 0.037 0.057 0.118

You know about TSI and the solar cycles, you know we just went through a long min where solar out put dropped substantially from the large peaks previously.

Besides the OHC that is still rising against a natural cooling period. Greenland lost over 1,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of ice between March 2009 and March 2012.

Glacial melt has rapidly increased in speed all over the globe, but mostly in the arctic. It's disturbing that such large glaciers around Greenland can keep speeding up ice loss. There are new papers out showing Antarctica's glaciers are still melting out and deteriorating, getting closer to calving off. The warmer it gets the faster and more rapid ice and and snow are lost and so is goes rapid positive feedback.

We have been at record highs long enough now on the OHC record that the phantom stalling out since 2003 doesn't apply. The record summer last year. I looked on Tisdale's site and Watts site, haven't seen it, I wouldn't want to talk about it if my agenda wasn't scientific truth either. But we can't be in any sort of cooling state with the Earth showing it is actually in a cooling phase and the natural variations towards a colder planet are not stopping the warming mechanisms that are moving linearly.

The snow extent averages for the NH from 1967-2011 in Spring. We can see a steady trend when we look at the monthly data, regardless of all other factors the snow can not hold up and is uniformly wasting out faster between 50-70N during the Spring.

This adds to the warming Earth. IT's a positive feedback in so many ways but ultimately enhances other feedbacks.

That is the issue at hand, Co2 doesn't just warm the Earth it tipped the scales.

[SVT450R]

The rate of LT warming over the past decade or so has slowed. No question about that, but what assumptions can be drawn from that observation? Does it mean that the theory of AGW is falsified? Because that essentially is what is being suggested by the tone of the skeptical argument.

AGW does not preclude the action of natural variability from slowing the trend, or increasing it for that matter. CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. There are many others, but CO2 is the one changing significantly long term. Solar variability can impose a 0.1C variance in global temp. ENSO a few tenths. The amount of aerosols and the changing arctic albedo and NH snow cover. We don't understand them all that well, and neither do we understand the varied and myriad interactions.

Acknowledging uncertainty in the climate system does not mean we lack clear understanding in certain particulars. Science is nearly certain that a doubling of CO2 will produce a radiative forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 and that this translates to a bit less than 1.2C of warming influence on the surface. Simply because the temperature of the lower troposphere does not follow a linear trend is not reason to doubt the final outcome. The physics will perform as expected, it's just a matter of time and positive phasing with other forcing agents.

Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas, providing 50% or so of the total greenhouse effect, followed by about 25% attributed to clouds. Specific humidity will certainly increase given a warmer ocean surface and lower atmosphere and thus add to the greenhouse effect, essentially doubling the warming effect from doubling CO2 alone. Some of this should be negated by more lower cloud amount and the lapse rate feedback, but the net forcing is expected to be in the positive direction thus adding to the initial 1.2C. Best estimates for how much warmer lie between 2C and 4.5C per 3.7W/m^2 of forcing at equilibrium. Hopefully it turns out to be closer to 2C, because we for near certain will double pre-industrial level (280ppm) by sometime mid 21st century. The full temperature response would require several further decades to reach equilibrium with radiative forcing. Likewise we are currently experiencing temperature supported by 1980s levels of CO2.

That is all i was trying to get at is that it has slowed and of course i don't believe this means AGW is falsified. I really feel that the next decade or two will be the true test for global temps and that if we continue to climb then i will completely agree with AGW of being the dominant role.

[The_Global_Warmer]

That is all i was trying to get at is that it has slowed and of course i don't believe this means AGW is falsified. I really feel that the next decade or two will be the true test for global temps and that if we continue to climb then i will completely agree with AGW of being the dominant role.

Ohc cant drop, litterally cant drop. This isnt enough for you?

[A-L-E-K]

what was I supposed to post? I've personally refuted this 5-6 times already this year. knowing that that is a lie is basic climate science literacy.

why aren't you critical of people who are posting stuff that is simply not true? why are the outright lies OK, but the corrections are not?

[Roger Smith]

When I stated that warming has apparently stalled out since 1998, this was characterized as both a "non-fact" and then a "lie."

Actually, it's an opinion that I believe is essentially accurate. The five-year segments that I used to illustrate this contention were:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

This is a much slower rate of increase than was seen from 1972 to 1996 where this five-year system can be extended back to include these data points:

1972-76 .. -0.03

1977-81 .. +0.14

1982-86 .. +0.11

1987-91 .. +0.30

1992-96 .. +0.23

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-06 .. +0.55

2007-11 .. +0.54

Now looking at rates of change, the first of these eight periods was just .02 colder than the period before (not in the table above). From then on, there are seven changes that average +.08 but this average increase was exceeded between steps 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 6-7. The rate of change was slightly negative or essentially zero in the other cases.

It is definitely true to say that the rate of change is essentially flat-line over the past ten years. My reading of the data was that a peak had been established in the 1997-98 El Nino and that said peak has not been meaningfully eclipsed by more recent years, granted there are three out of the succeeding thirteen years that very slightly exceeded 1998 or tied it, but there were ten that were not as warm.

If the data series were a topographic map and you were driving a car forward in time, the sensation would be that of climbing a series of hills separated by slight valleys, then reaching a plateau. This is my interpretation of the numbers and I am sure the statistical best fit for the past fifteen years would have only a very negligible slope, perhaps .01-.02 per decade at most. Given the overall variability of the numbers in the data set, this is flat-line rather than an increase (I think it's fair to ask for a slight variation around zero to have three classes, increase, flat-line and decrease, and I'm not asking for that variation to amount to the middle third of possibilities which, if you had to choose the most accurate term, might be a fair criterion to use).

Anyway, I am tempted to say, let's review this in 2030 but at my age, that's not all that certain a prospect, so I will leave it to those more likely to be alert at that point in time. And please note, I made no predictions based on the current flat-line assessment, I made predictions based on some theoretical assumptions and if I'm around in 2030 I will try to remember to revisit the discussion and give a post-mortem on those. What is the "official" prediction for 2030 and beyond? A few years ago, I got the impression it was a fairly large increase in the 2-4 C range. Has this been abandoned now?

.

[dabize]

When I stated that warming has apparently stalled out since 1998, this was characterized as both a "non-fact" and then a "lie."

Actually, it's an opinion that I believe is essentially accurate. The five-year segments that I used to illustrate this contention were:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

This is a much slower rate of increase than was seen from 1972 to 1996 where this five-year system can be extended back to include these data points:

1972-76 .. -0.03

1977-81 .. +0.14

1982-86 .. +0.11

1987-91 .. +0.30

1992-96 .. +0.23

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-06 .. +0.55

2007-11 .. +0.54

Now looking at rates of change, the first of these eight periods was just .02 colder than the period before (not in the table above). From then on, there are seven changes that average +.08 but this average increase was exceeded between steps 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 6-7. The rate of change was slightly negative or essentially zero in the other cases.

It is definitely true to say that the rate of change is essentially flat-line over the past ten years. My reading of the data was that a peak had been established in the 1997-98 El Nino and that said peak has not been meaningfully eclipsed by more recent years, granted there are three out of the succeeding thirteen years that very slightly exceeded 1998 or tied it, but there were ten that were not as warm.

The problem with this is the fact that the variations in measured temperature caused by the ENSO phases (increased during El Nino, decreased during La Nina) are due to differences in heat storage (heat goes into the oceans during La Nina, the reverse during El Ninos).

The rate of heating due to CO2 does not change.

The focus on minutiae of variations in measured temperature between the'70s and since '98 - in the context of the nonsensical idea that CO2 levels could continue to rise without continued warming in the system - plays into the hands of the anti-science types who are opposing meaningful measures against AGW.

Got it?