Iceagenow Blog Complains that Record Lows Are Being Ignored

[Msalgado]

There are many papers suggesting many different mechanisms and variables to explain this hiatus.

Unfortunately, that alone proves what skeptics have long been saying, that our understanding of the climate system is poor, and if there is no consensus on what scientists believe.

Dr. Pielke had an excellent post on this subject here:

http://pielkeclimate...ate-scientists/

Of course there is a consensus on what scientists believe. Our understanding of the climate system could be better, but it does not take a large understanding of the planet to understand how an energy imbalance will result in increase in the equilibrium temperature.

At this point you're just throwing things up against the wall and hoping one of them sticks.

[WeatherRusty]

In my argument above I stated that something like a 0.21C surface temp deficit would exist if there had been no warming since 1998. In reality the warming rate relative to the previous 3 decades has been reduced by about one half.....about 0.8C per decade. So over the 14 year period since 1998 we really need only account for ~ 0.1C.....easily within the explanatory power in a combination of La Nina and prolonged solar minimum.

Because of this line of reasoning, I agree with solar physicist Judith Lean that by the end of 2014 global temperature will likely rise by something close to 0.14C. If that happens will this debate finally be settled?

[bluewave]

It called one El Nino year sandwiched between two multi-year year Nina events.

http://blog.chron.co...ack-of-warming/

So we see a couple of recent La Niñas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niña.

As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.

[WeatherRusty]

It called one El Nino year sandwiched between two multi-year year Nina events.

http://blog.chron.co...ack-of-warming/

So we see a couple of recent La Niñas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niña.

As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.

Let's not forget to give ol' sol his due. A solar max coupled with a Nino should do the trick in making up for some lost ground. Judith Lean figures 0.14C which is right in line with my quick demonstration of the degree to which combined solar and ocean oscillatory behavior has temporarily slowed the greenhouse warming trend and is now poised to reverse that influence.

[Snow_Miser]

Because of this line of reasoning, I agree with solar physicist Judith Lean that by the end of 2014 global temperature will likely rise by something close to 0.14C. If that happens will this debate finally be settled?

If temperatures begin to rise by 2014, I will concede that anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases are now having a dominant role in present climate change.

[Snow_Miser]

Of course there is a consensus on what scientists believe. Our understanding of the climate system could be better, but it does not take a large understanding of the planet to understand how an energy imbalance will result in increase in the equilibrium temperature.

Do tell me then, why do so many qualified scientists disagree with what is causing the hiatus in temperatures, if our understanding of the climate is as proficient as you claim it to be?

[Msalgado]

Once again, I don't believe that most scientists buy your theory that there are a large number of scientists who believe there has been a pause in the long term trend of the warming so your loaded question is not appropriate. However, not being able to forecast the short term climate fluctuations due to natural variability in the system does not mean the understanding of the entire system over the long run is poor.

[bluewave]

Let's not forget to give ol' sol his due. A solar max coupled with a Nino should do the trick in making up for some lost ground. Judith Lean figures 0.14C which is right in line with my quick demonstration of the degree to which combined solar and ocean oscillatory behavior has temporarily slowed the greenhouse warming trend and is now poised to reverse that influence.

True. Some people think that the temperature just goes up in a straight line every year. It's the long term

warming trend that people should be looking at. I can imagine some people thinking that the few La Nina

years after the 98 super El Nino was a new cooling trend. It took several years after that to set a new

high temperature record. You can see how each El Nino year over the last decade has either set a new

high or came close to a tie of the previous one.

[toronto blizzard]

We past he tipping point when Co2 was 350 ppm in the atmosphere. It will stay in our atmosphere now for 100's of years to come. What we are seeing now are lag effects which will go on now for 100's of years into the future unless we get the Co2 down to below 350 ppm. Until then we are doomed.

Ya we are doomed alright. What a joke.

[Msalgado]

It called one El Nino year sandwiched between two multi-year year Nina events.

http://blog.chron.co...ack-of-warming/

So we see a couple of recent La Niñas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niña.

As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.

I brought this up earlier and Snow's response was to consider it laughable.

[toronto blizzard]

So why is it that the 1930s was a warmer decade for the U.S than now? Explain i really want to know. Wasn't much talk of CO2 back then was there.

[Msalgado]

So why is it that the 1930s was a warmer decade for the U.S than now? Explain i really want to know. Wasn't much talk of CO2 back then was there.

If you want to believe that the 1930s being warmer in the US disproves AGW theory then you can continue to believe that. On the other hand, you can ask yourself if it would be possible that a regional pattern of heat in the past might be completely fine and consistent with AGW theory.

http://skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm

[ben4vols]

Our understanding of the climate system could be better, but it does not take a large understanding of the planet to understand how an energy imbalance will result in increase in the equilibrium temperature.

And this is proven by the accuracy of models and hindcasts?

[Msalgado]

And this is proven by the accuracy of models and hindcasts?

You need a model and a hindcast to understand basic thermodynamics? I don't.

[Snow_Miser]

I brought this up earlier and Snow's response was to consider it laughable.

Yes, and you have not adressed my statement since.

[ben4vols]

You need a model and a hindcast to understand basic thermodynamics? I don't.

If only it were that easy. I love the deluded self confidence of warmists. If only that deluded self confidence could be converted into accurate results.

[Msalgado]

If only it were that easy. I love the deluded self confidence of warmists. If only that deluded self confidence could be converted into accurate results.

Alrighty then. But before you go off an "deluded self confidence" you may want to brush up on the conservation of energy and read what I wrote.

[toronto blizzard]

If you want to believe that the 1930s being warmer in the US disproves AGW theory then you can continue to believe that. On the other hand, you can ask yourself if it would be possible that a regional pattern of heat in the past might be completely fine and consistent with AGW theory.

http://skepticalscie...r-on-record.htm

http://skepticalscie...0th-century.htm

Ya whatever man. Go to the icecap.us website and theres an article that you may want to read.

edit: here it is

Extreme Global Warming: NOAA Confirms Modern U.S. Warming Not As Hot vs. 1930s

C3 Headlines

The recent toasty 2012 summer weather experienced in the U.S. has the climate doomsday pundits again claiming that extreme global warming (EGW) is to blame - however, NOAA’s NCDC climate research agency has recently documented that EGW for the U.S. over the last decade was AWOL. (click images to enlarge)

Read here. The NCDC, a NOAA climate research unit, recently published a new dataset compiling U.S. weather records, including the maximum temperature record for each state. (Interestingly, the NCDC refers to these as ‘climate extremes’ - to the casual observer, it would be more accurate to refer to them as ‘weather extremes.’

The adjacent chart shows when those maximum temperature records were initially set, by decade. In addition, the black dots represent the average CO2 level by decade. [update 7/15/12: We were notified by ‘C3’ reader that chart had mistake, and we confirmed - the 1930’s had 24 maximum temperature records, not 23; the 1990’s actually had 3, not 4 as shown in the chart]

“It also is useful for putting the recent heat wave in perspective. Despite the 24/7 caterwauling, only two new state records - South Carolina and Georgia- are currently under investigation. And, looking carefully at Shein et al. dataset, there appears to be a remarkable lack of all-time records in recent years. This is particularly striking given the increasing urbanization of the U.S. and the consequent “non climatic” warming that creeps into previously pristine records. Everything else being equal-and with no warming from increased greenhouse gases- most statewide records should be in or near big cities. But they aren’t.”

Per NOAA, 82% of all maximum records were initially set prior to 1960 and prior to the accelerated growth of human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels.

As can be seen, through 2011, no maximum temperature records have been set since the 1990’s. This is simply amazing since all the climate doomsday scientists and pundits have stated that recent global warming was “unprecedented” and that U.S. temperatures were rapidly increasing due to CO2 levels.

Based on the hysterical hyperbole from mainstream media sources, one would naturally have expected that many new maximum temperature records would have been set (not tied) since 1999.

Alas, it did not happen. Therefore, one can conclude that the U.S. was overdue for some record-setting temperatures and should be expected in the very near future.

As if on cue, the 2012 hot summer arrived in the U.S. and it’s highly likely some new state maximum temperature records were set. Again, this should not be a surprise since a hot summer was overdue. And it most certainly was not a result of high CO2 levels.

Objectively, if high CO2 levels are primarily responsible for record maximum temperatures, than the past U.S. records prior to 1960 fully refute that speculative hypothesis.

This next chart lists each U.S. state and when its maximum temperature record was initially set, and includes those years when it was tied.

It’s especially interesting to note that there was just one state, and a single year (2006), where a previous maximum temperature record was reached.

Additionally, during the Super El Nino of 1998, not a single maximum temperature record was broken or reached, which is incredibly mind-boggling when one considers the combination of an extreme ENSO phase with high CO2 levels.

Conclusions: Despite the incredible growth of CO2 levels since 1960, the vast majority of U.S. extreme global warming took place pre-1960. Based on NOAA historical observations and expectations, the U.S. was due for a summer of record-setting temperatures regardless of CO2 levels - the 2012 hot summer may indeed tie old records and set new ones. And finally, the 1890’s to 1930’s were decades of extreme heat in the U.S., with the majority of state maximum temperature records being set during that period - climate doomsday scientists have no believable theory to explain such extreme global warming with such low CO2 levels.

Icecap Note: This confirms the study by Bruce Hall using NCDC Monthly State Records (50 states times 12 months or 600 data points).

Enlarged

[donsutherland1]

So why is it that the 1930s was a warmer decade for the U.S than now? Explain i really want to know. Wasn't much talk of CO2 back then was there.

3 severe droughts. The U.S. was a hot island in the midst of a cool global sea. Today, much of the world is warmer than normal. Indeed, the Northern Hemisphere land areas just had their warmest June on record (NCDC data set). The June 2012 anomaly was an astounding 2.42 sigma above the 1981-2010 mean for that area. Climate models have forecast faster warming in the Northern Hemisphere (bi-polar see saw among other factors would result in a delayed and more gradual warming in the Southern Hemisphere).

[Msalgado]

Yes, and you have not adressed my statement since.

There was nothing there worth addressing, to be quite frank. If you want to dismiss the results of those studies out of hand, then go right ahead. Who am I to stop you? There's no reason that filtering short term noise out of a signal will change it. ENSO is not a forcing. You either accept this or you do not but I'm sure that I am not capable of changing the mind of those who laugh at the notion and dismiss it out of hand..

[Snow_Miser]

You need a model and a hindcast to understand basic thermodynamics? I don't.

Unfortunately, models are the only means in which studies have linked Carbon Dioxide to warming.

There are many papers documenting that models underestimate the solar contribution to climate change.

See Harrison and Stephenson 2006, and Marchitto et. al 2010 for good examples.

From HS 2006:

This might amplify the effect of the small solar cycle variation in total solar irradiance, believed to be underestimated by climate models (Stott et al. 2003), which neglect a cosmic ray effect.

From M10:

If our observations

are supported by future SST reconstructions from

the equatorial Pacific, then it is possible that the

sensitivity of the climate system to solar forcing is

underestimated by current GCMs.

[toronto blizzard]

3 severe droughts. The U.S. was a hot island in the midst of a cool global sea. Today, much of the world is warmer than normal. Indeed, the Northern Hemisphere land areas just had their warmest June on record (NCDC data set). The June 2012 anomaly was an astounding 2.42 sigma above the 1981-2010 mean for that area. Climate models have forecast faster warming in the Northern Hemisphere (bi-polar see saw among other factors would result in a delayed and more gradual warming in the Southern Hemisphere).

I wouldn't beleive the NCDC data as they have been accused of manipulating the data. Just so you know I am another AGW skeptic. Tell me that the cold PDO and Warm AMO have a direct relationship to U.S drought like what we saw during the 30s and 50s.

[Msalgado]

Unfortunately, models are the only means in which studies have linked Carbon Dioxide to warming.

There are many papers documenting that models underestimate the solar contribution to climate change.

See Harrison and Stephenson 2006, and Marchitto et. al 2010 for good examples.

From HS 2006:

This might amplify the effect of the small solar cycle variation in total solar irradiance, believed to be underestimated by climate models (Stott et al. 2003), which neglect a cosmic ray effect.

From M10:

If our observations

are supported by future SST reconstructions from

the equatorial Pacific, then it is possible that the

sensitivity of the climate system to solar forcing is

underestimated by current GCMs.

You operate on so many misconceptions that nearly every one of your posts contains them. CO2's radiative properties have been observed both in laboratory settings and in real world settings. To say that we only believe it is a large factor in the warming of the planet due to modeling is outrageously untrue.

I pretty much stop reading your posts at the point when I reach such a scientifically incorrect statement because if you don't understand the chemistry and physics behind why CO2 is known to be a GHG I'm not sure how we can proceed in the debate.

[Snow_Miser]

I pretty much stop reading your posts at the point when I reach such a scientifically incorrect statement because if you don't understand the chemistry and physics behind why CO2 is known to be a GHG I'm not sure how we can proceed in the debate.

You are very good at spinning other people's posts so that you can then manipulate their arguments, and accuse them of something that they don't believe.

I NEVER have argued that increased CO2 does not have a warming impact. What I am arguing is that there is no evidence to back up CO2 being the dominant driver of the warming over the last 100-150 years. There is, however, great amounts of evidence to suggest a solar cause.

Don't manipulate my arguments in the future.

[donsutherland1]

I wouldn't beleive the NCDC data as they have been accused of manipulating the data. Just so you know I am another AGW skeptic. Tell me that the cold PDO and Warm AMO have a direct relationship to U.S drought like what we saw during the 30s and 50s.

Of course, PDO and AMO have an impact and, in my August forecast in the weather forecasting forum, 1953 is one of my drought analogs. The impact of the oceanic cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO) is interannual and cyclical. Those cycles are superimposed on an overall warming that is a function of natural and anthropogenic forcings, with the latter growing relatively more important in recent years and decades.

[Msalgado]

Fair enough, you never said that.

However, you did say:

Unfortunately, models are the only means in which studies have linked Carbon Dioxide to warming.

Which is just completely incorrect and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject.

[Snow_Miser]

Which is just completely incorrect and shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject.

So where is the observational evidence that shows that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of temperatures over the last 150 years? Do show us the evidence.

[Msalgado]

So where is the observational evidence that shows that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of temperatures over the last 150 years? Do show us the evidence.

Is that goalpost heavy?

You said:

Unfortunately, models are the only means in which studies have linked Carbon Dioxide to warming.

Now, notice the inclusions of the words primary and additional time frame.

However, there absolutely is observational evidence within the near term that shows that both outgoing and downward radiation in the bands corresponding to CO2 (and other GHGs for that matter) have changed. There's quite a bit of it, actually, its its consistent with exactly what you would expect to see in AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

So where is the observational evidence that shows that Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of temperatures over the last 150 years? Do show us the evidence.

Do you believe in physics? Do you understand the solid ground upon which radiative physics is based? The same physics which enables the U.S. Air force to develop heat seeking missiles informs us that a doubling of CO2 brings about a 3.7 watt radiative forcing. Max Planck and other fundamental physicists learned exactly how radiation relates directly to temperature. The physics of the greenhouse effect is rock solid. That's your evidence.

[toronto blizzard]

Hey AGW believers out there explain this to me

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/