A Little Known Prediction by Judith Lean and David Rind

[Snow_Miser]

No it does not assume that. We have returned to early 20th century solar activity. If solar activity in the late 20th century were responsible for the warming, then a return to early 20th century solar activity would cause an immediate cooling trend. It could take several decades to reach full cooling. But cooling would commence immediately once solar activity was returned to the very low values of the early 20th century (and present). 

 

If solar activity had only gone down a little bit, then yes, we could continue to warm if we had not yet reached equilibrium. Solar forcing would have to remain above the equilibrium value, however. Given we are at record low solar activity, and yet rapid warming continues, it is obviously having only a small effect. 

 

 

Say solar activity ranges on a scale of 1-10. We started the 20th century at a 1, and ended at a 10. Maybe temperature didn't quite equilibriate yet, and only got to a 6. Well solar activity is back down to a 1 or 2, which is still much less than a 6, which means the earth should be cooling. And yet, rapid warming continues. 

 

If the solar forcing were to decrease, we wouldn't necessarily see immediate cooling if the climate wasn't previously in equilibrium with the solar forcing. If there was a trend upward in solar activity during the late-20th Century for example, like the ACRIM TSI dataset shows, equilibrium would take longer to reach.

 

[Jonger]

 I maintain that the jury is still out on how high the solar influence is on global temp.'s when considering things like Q's about past lag of solar activity to global temp.'s, cosmic rays' indirect influence on global temp.'s, etc. I think we'll know a lot more within about the next five years, which would put us at the 10 year mark past the deep min. of the prior cycle and likely on the way to an even quieter min. around 2018-2022. (I'm expecting the current max. period to end around 2015 followed by a plummet of activity.) I still think that there is a lot of uncertainty as regards man's influence on global temp.'s (AGW). I still believe that it is quite possible that a major portion of the late 20th century global warming was caused by the solar influence being that 1950-2000 overall apparently had the highest amount of sunspot activity for any 50 year period going back at least 400 years. Nobody knows for sure where we are headed despite how convinced they may seem to be. It is all still speculation.

 

How exactly was solar activity monitored 400 years ago?

[The_Global_Warmer]

How exactly was solar activity monitored 400 years ago?

 

 

Galileo, ice cores, tree rings, soil samples, coral reefs? 

 

 

Given Galileo started things we can extrapolate very very well.

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

How exactly was solar activity monitored 400 years ago?

 

Through cosmogenic isotopes, specially through changes in C14. Temperature can be reconstructed through Oxygen 18 isotope ratios.

 

We can see the dramatic rise in solar activity that has occurred over the last 100-150 years through these proxy measurements, and can also see that the sun can explain a large part of the variability in temperatures during the 20th Century, and over the course of the last 1000-2000 years.

 

Usoskin et al. 2005 is one such study that documents the large scale correlation between multiple solar activity indices and temperature anomalies over the last 2000 years or so. Solar Activity has spiked up quite anomalously over the last 100-200 years or so, and because of the intricate correlation between temperature and solar activity in the past, we should naturally expect temperatures to rise when solar activity rises. No surprise, we see temperatures rise with Solar Activity during the last 100-200 years.

This is strong evidence that there has been a significant solar contribution to Global Warming over the last 100-200 years.

The next image is from Scherer et al. 2006. This paper shows the intricate correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last 2000 years even more closely. Again, note the dramatic increase in solar activity over the 20th Century in Solar Activity.

Solar Activity can account for a significant fraction of the 20th Century Warming.

[skierinvermont]

If the solar forcing were to decrease, we wouldn't necessarily see immediate cooling if the climate wasn't previously in equilibrium with the solar forcing. If there was a trend upward in solar activity during the late-20th Century for example, like the ACRIM TSI dataset shows, equilibrium would take longer to reach.

 

Your chart illustrates my point perfectly. We have already reached year 17 in your chart with record low solar forcing. We should be cooling rapidly if solar forcing is as strong as you claim.

[Cory]

I get called a "denier" because I say that the science isn't as certain as some would like to believe. Excellent post.

 

You get called a denier because we're all evidently stuck in 3rd grade. 

[Snow_Miser]

Your chart illustrates my point perfectly. We have already reached year 17 in your chart with record low solar forcing. We should be cooling rapidly if solar forcing is as strong as you claim.

I agree that we should be cooling at least slightly. We can see a slight dip evident over the last 10 years or so evident on the HadcruT4 dataset. Only time will tell if this is an impact from solar activity or not.

Year 17 does not show a particularly strong cooling trend FWIW. If we cool more strongly over the next 5-10 years, we can assume it to be the sun.

[skierinvermont]

I agree that we should be cooling at least slightly. We can see a slight dip evident over the last 10 years or so evident on the HadcruT4 dataset. Only time will tell if this is an impact from solar activity or not.

Year 17 does not show a particularly strong cooling trend FWIW. If we cool more strongly over the next 5-10 years, we can assume it to be the sun.

 

Year 17 shows cooling just as fast as the ramp up. We should be cooling rapidly, if solar forcing is a stronger forcing than thought. Instead, the earth remains in a large positive energy imbalance. Although surface temperatures have been rising more slowly, partially due to an abundance of La Ninas, the earth continues to gain heat at an incomprehensibly fast rate. 

 

When Pinatubo erupted, it created a strong negative forcing. The surface temperature, and the energy balance, of earth responded immediately. Rapid cooling occurred immediately and the oceans lost heat. Peak cooling was only a year or so after the eruption. 

 

If the sun is a stronger forcing agent than thought, then the recent record low in solar activity would be a strong negative forcing and rapid cooling should have commenced in 2007, just as it did in 1991. 

[Snow_Miser]

Year 17 shows cooling just as fast as the ramp up. We should be cooling rapidly, if solar forcing is a stronger forcing than thought. Instead, the earth remains in a large positive energy imbalance. Although surface temperatures have been rising more slowly, partially due to an abundance of La Ninas, the earth continues to gain heat at an incomprehensibly fast rate.

When Pinatubo erupted, it created a strong negative forcing. The surface temperature, and the energy balance, of earth responded immediately. Rapid cooling occurred immediately and the oceans lost heat. Peak cooling was only a year or so after the eruption.

If the sun is a stronger forcing agent than thought, then the recent record low in solar activity would be a strong negative forcing and rapid cooling should have commenced in 2007, just as it did in 1991.

I disagree that at this stage we should be cooling rapidly. Some cooling can be expected, not a large amount though. I think that if I'm right, temperatures should cool noticeably over the next 5-10 years.

With Pinatubo, it was a one year event, and the climate never fully equilibriated to the negative Pinatubo forcing. That was a short term one year event. This is a longer term gradual decrease in solar activity that had previously contributed significantly to the long term temperature increase over the 20th century. Thus the rapid cooling response from the sun would not be as quick as with Pinatubo. Pinatubo did not contribute to the long term warming trend. As the Zanchettin article I posted talked about, the climate responds differently, and is more sensitive to slower long term changes, rather than abrupt short term changes because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

[AvantHiatus]

I disagree that at this stage we should be cooling rapidly. Some cooling can be expected, not a large amount though. I think that if I'm right, temperatures should cool noticeably over the next 5-10 years.

With Pinatubo, it was a one year event, and the climate never fully equilibriated to the negative Pinatubo forcing. That was a short term one year event. This is a longer term gradual decrease in solar activity. As the Zanchettin article I posted talked about, the climate responds differently, and is more sensitive to slower long term changes, rather than abrupt short term changes because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

There are some issues with your hypothesis here. The aspect that gives me most pause is that you do not include in any other factors that could negate or increase warming except the solar cycle for your 5-10 year predictions. For example, assuming salinity in the oceans decrease to a certain level, the gulf stream could begin transporting less warm water to the polar latitudes.

 

To be honest, I think it's silly to argue over "climate lags" and such. Just take a look at the 1950's and 1960's which remain steadily cold despite the increased solar activity of that era. Shifts in solar activity appear to be insignificant in comparison to the overall energy emitted by the sun, which remains nearly constant at least in the ranges of keeping Earth's climate relatively stable.

 

As for your prediction of cooling. I don't think it's possible simply because the arctic looks like it's about to melt out and the oceanic heat content is through the roof. If all the factors come together perfectly, at best we could see is -0.1c over the decade in my opinion and then what resides over the horizon is unknown but assuming GHG forcing is as forceful as it was in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, would not be a pretty situation. CO2 keeps increasing each year will most likely outpace any negative feedback by a fair margin. Speaking of lags, temperatures and sea level always lag behind CO2 increase and decrease.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102104945.htm

[Snow_Miser]

There are some issues with your hypothesis here. The aspect that gives me most pause is that you do not include in any other factors that could negate or increase warming except the solar cycle for your 5-10 year predictions. For example, assuming salinity in the oceans decrease to a certain level, the gulf stream could begin transporting less warm water to the polar latitudes.

To be honest, I think it's silly to argue over "climate lags" and such. Just take a look at the 1950's and 1960's which remain steadily cold despite the increased solar activity of that era. Shifts in solar activity appear to be insignificant in comparison to the overall energy emitted by the sun, which remains nearly constant at least in the ranges of keeping Earth's climate relatively stable.

I do not neglect other factors. Other factors have likely also had a role as well. My hypothesis concerns a more significant solar warming component to the 20th century than is sometimes assumed.

Solar activity generally remained flat during the mid 20th century, and rose in the early and late 20th century. The sun correlates well with temperature over the last 150 years.

Source: Georgieva et al. 2005.

[AvantHiatus]

I do not neglect other factors. Other factors have likely also had a role as well. My hypothesis concerns a more significant solar warming component to the 20th century than is sometimes assumed.

Solar activity generally remained flat during the mid 20th century, and rose in the early and late 20th century. The sun correlates well with temperature over the last 150 years.

Source: Georgieva et al. 2005.

You can't be serious. The sun was out of control during the 1950's and 1960's and there is little if any correlation with surface temperatures. Temperatures dropped during a record high solar period because the balance of oceanic heat content changed in part due to the -PDO. Lowering sea surface temperatures throughout the pacific and thus favoring a la nina-dominant era. Also that graph you posted is geomagnetic activity, solar storms etc. It's probably a coincidence that they correlate and the geomagnetic trends somehow don't correlate with solar activity either. Will need to do more research into this as it is somewhat strange.

 

[Snow_Miser]

You can't be serious. The sun was out of control during the 1950's and 1960's and there is little if any correlation with surface temperatures. Temperatures dropped during a record high solar period because the balance of oceanic heat content changed in part due to the -PDO. Lowering sea surface temperatures throughout the pacific and thus favoring a la nina-dominant era.

You're looking at Sunspot Numbers instead of the AA Index, which is what I posted. The SSN is a poor metric of solar activity since it only accounts for a portion of the total solar activity changes.

[skierinvermont]

I disagree that at this stage we should be cooling rapidly. Some cooling can be expected, not a large amount though. I think that if I'm right, temperatures should cool noticeably over the next 5-10 years.

With Pinatubo, it was a one year event, and the climate never fully equilibriated to the negative Pinatubo forcing. That was a short term one year event. This is a longer term gradual decrease in solar activity that had previously contributed significantly to the long term temperature increase over the 20th century. Thus the rapid cooling response from the sun would not be as quick as with Pinatubo. Pinatubo did not contribute to the long term warming trend. As the Zanchettin article I posted talked about, the climate responds differently, and is more sensitive to slower long term changes, rather than abrupt short term changes because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

 

 

Complete lack of basic logic skills.

 

Is the sun a strong forcing agent or not?

 

Is or is not the sun at near-record low activity?

 

If so, it should cause strong cooling.

 

 

Yes it took longer for solar activity to decrease than it did for Pinatubo's sulfur particles to disperse globally. The latter took a few months, the former took a few years. Solar activity decreased from record high levels in ~2004 to record low levels by ~2008 and has remained at very low levels since. This is true for both TSI and the inverse Geo-AA index (which is not actually a significant forcing agent but we can pretend it is). So yeah, the cooling from the sun might take a little longer to commence than the cooling did after Pinatubo. A few years perhaps. By 2008 at the latest. By 2008 solar activity was at record low levels by all measures. If any of these measures were a strong forcing agent, then cooling should have begun at that time. It did not. And it has not in the 5 years since then. We are 5 years overdue. 

 

 

And of course, all the solar deniers were predicting cooling to commence at that time as well. 

 

 

 

"Thermal inertia" doesn't mean that once the oceans are warming their inertia will continue to cause warming long after a strong negative forcing agent is applied. "Thermal inertia" means that it takes a long time for the earth to fully cool after a strong negative forcing agent is applied. But cooling begins almost immediately following ANY change in forcing. The energy balance IMMEDIATELY goes negative following any strong negative forcing. Instead, the energy balance remains incomprehensibly positive. 

 

 

Again, your chart is a perfect illustration of the concept of "thermal inertia." The earth doesn't equilibriate to a new temperature immediately. But it begins moving towards the new equilibrium as soon as net forcing goes negative. 

[Snow_Miser]

Complete lack of basic logic skills.

Is the sun a strong forcing agent or not?

Is or is not the sun at near-record low activity?

If so, it should cause strong cooling.

Yes it took longer for solar activity to decrease than it did for Pinatubo's sulfur particles to disperse globally. The latter took a few months, the former took a few years. Solar activity decreased from record high levels in ~2004 to record low levels by ~2008 and has remained at very low levels since. This is true for both TSI and the inverse Geo-AA index (which is not actually a significant forcing agent but we can pretend it is). So yeah, the cooling from the sun might take a little longer to commence than the cooling did after Pinatubo. A few years perhaps. By 2008 at the latest. By 2008 solar activity was at record low levels by all measures. If any of these measures were a strong forcing agent, then cooling should have begun at that time. It did not. And it has not in the 5 years since then. We are 5 years overdue.

And of course, all the solar deniers were predicting cooling to commence at that time as well.

"Thermal inertia" doesn't mean that once the oceans are warming their inertia will continue to cause warming long after a strong negative forcing agent is applied. "Thermal inertia" means that it takes a long time for the earth to fully cool after a strong negative forcing agent is applied. But cooling begins almost immediately following ANY change in forcing.

I see you're starting to throw the personal insults once someone disagrees with you. We saw a dip in temperatures likely caused by the -PDO and solar activity on the HadcruT4 dataset. Again, a steepening cooling trend over the next 5-10 years would support a stronger solar warming over the 20th century.

We're arguing over what will happen in the future. We don't know for sure who will be right. Let's see what the temperatures actually do first.

[AvantHiatus]

You're looking at Sunspot Numbers instead of the AA Index, which is what I posted. The SSN is a poor metric of solar activity since it only accounts for a portion of the total solar activity changes.

Even considering this, The Earth should be cooling more than it has been in recent years. It's obvious that either Solar Changes are less impactful than suggested or GHG forcing is a more powerful feedback.

[Snow_Miser]

Even considering this, The Earth should be cooling more than it has been in recent years. It's obvious that either Solar Changes are less impactful than suggested or GHG forcing is a more powerful feedback.

What's your justification for the above claim?

[AvantHiatus]

What's your justification for the above claim?

It has been posted in this forum before. The reasoning behind this is that temperatures have only cooled by about -0.01 c to -0.05 c in the last decade on most datasets and a couple show slight warming (Ironically the global surface temperature and ocean temperature combined average). In the previous period of reduced solar activity in the 1920's, there was almost a -0.5 c drop from 19th century temperatures, which was during a period of higher solar activity.

 

Also, if you look at the temperature vs sunspot graph....you will see the difference between solar activity and temperature increasing. Indicating that GHG forcing is taking over.

[Jonger]

Your chart illustrates my point perfectly. We have already reached year 17 in your chart with record low solar forcing. We should be cooling rapidly if solar forcing is as strong as you claim.I agree that we should be cooling at least slightly. We can see a slight dip evident over the last 10 years or so evident on the HadcruT4 dataset. Only time will tell if this is an impact from solar activity or not.

Year 17 does not show a particularly strong cooling trend FWIW. If we cool more strongly over the next 5-10 years, we can assume it to be the sun.

That chart hurts my eyes.... Very weird visual effect.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We are no where near any sort of cooling.

 

2012 is the record high for OHC levels, 2013 will almost certainly break that record.

 

Even with benign start, UAH, GISS, NCDC, and RSS are all poised for top 5 finishes on record, even the record snow cover is not doing much to help.  Which makes me believe that goes both ways and I have definitely over estimated it's impact on global temps.

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

I see you're starting to throw the personal insults once someone disagrees with you. We saw a dip in temperatures likely caused by the -PDO and solar activity on the HadcruT4 dataset. Again, a steepening cooling trend over the next 5-10 years would support a stronger solar warming over the 20th century.

We're arguing over what will happen in the future. We don't know for sure who will be right. Let's see what the temperatures actually do first.

 

 

Except cooling should have begun once solar forcing went strongly negative in 2008 (if the sun were actually a much stronger forcing agent than thought). As your chart illustrates perfectly.

 

Furthermore you fail to understand that the large positive energy imbalance which continues to this day guarantees that without a new negative forcing beyond any hypothetical (and non-existent) negative solar forcing that began in 2008, warming is going to continue. The fact that the earth remains in such a massive energy imbalance guarantees that the earth will continue to warm for quite some time to come. Even if all forcing agents remained exactly the same as they are today (solar activity remained low, GHGs stopped increasing, aerosols stayed constant, albedo constant etc.), warming would continue for many decades before equilibrium was reached.

 

 

Your hypotheses are being torn to shreds before your eyes. You are clinging to them dogmatically. 

[skierinvermont]

That chart hurts my eyes.... Very weird visual effect.

 

Really? Of all the charts on this forum, some of which look pretty whacky, that one seems ok to me. The HadCRUT4 chart above looks pretty weird to me but I've had a few drinks. Some of the solar ones SL posted too. 

 

EDIT: Of course SL's charts are more like artwork with wormy lines all over them designed to make the eye see a strong correlation where there isn't one. What the chart tries to obscure is a decrease in solar activity from ~400AD to 1000AD while temperatures warmed considerably. The only real similarity between solar activity and temperature is a general increase in the 20th century (although sometimes one leads the other and vise-versa) which is not the foundation of a strong statistical relationship. 

 

*** This is not to say that solar activity did not play a signficant role in modulating the past 2000 years of climate (and on much longer timescales as well). Solar activity was one of the primary forcings behind the much slower and smaller climate variations of the last 2000 years. Solar activity, combined with changes in volcanic activity combined to produce a temperature variation of ~.5C from MWP to LIA. This longer timescale also allowed for the full feedback climate sensitivity response, whereas our current warming is still far from equilibrium because it has occurred so much faster. 

[Snow_Miser]

It has been posted in this forum before. The reasoning behind this is that temperatures have only cooled by about -0.01 c to -0.05 c in the last decade on most datasets and a couple show slight warming (Ironically the global surface temperature and ocean temperature combined average). In the previous period of reduced solar activity in the 1920's, there was almost a -0.5 c drop from 19th century temperatures, which was during a period of higher solar activity.

 

Also, if you look at the temperature vs sunspot graph....you will see the difference between solar activity and temperature increasing. Indicating that GHG forcing is taking over.

 

 

Except cooling should have begun once solar forcing went strongly negative in 2008 (if the sun were actually a much stronger forcing agent than thought). As your chart illustrates perfectly.

 

Furthermore you fail to understand that the large positive energy imbalance which continues to this day guarantees that without a new negative forcing beyond any hypothetical (and non-existent) negative solar forcing that began in 2008, warming is going to continue. The fact that the earth remains in such a massive energy imbalance guarantees that the earth will continue to warm for quite some time to come. Even if all forcing agents remained exactly the same as they are today (solar activity remained low, GHGs stopped increasing, aerosols stayed constant, albedo constant etc.), warming would continue for many decades before equilibrium was reached.

 

 

Your hypotheses are being torn to shreds before your eyes. You are clinging to them dogmatically. 

 

Skier claims that my hypothesis is being torn to shreds on the basis that he and Weatherguy claim that there should be more cooling than has been observed. Let's look at a prediction that has assumed a stronger solar forcing during the 20th Century.

 

For example, with Ermakov et al. 2009, they predicted a sharp temperature decrease to occur by 2040 and get temperatures down to mid-20th Century levels.

 

 

While this is too extreme of a temperature decrease, it illustrates my point nicely, since it shows sharp cooling up to around 2020. Like I said, the real determining factor will be what temperatures do over the next several years or so.

[Snow_Miser]

Really? Of all the charts on this forum, some of which look pretty whacky, that one seems ok to me. The HadCRUT4 chart above looks pretty weird to me but I've had a few drinks. Some of the solar ones SL posted too. 

 

EDIT: Of course SL's charts are more like artwork with wormy lines all over them designed to make the eye see a strong correlation where there isn't one. What the chart tries to obscure is a decrease in solar activity from ~400AD to 1000AD while temperatures warmed considerably. The only real similarity between solar activity and temperature is a general increase in the 20th century (although sometimes one leads the other and vise-versa) which is not the foundation of a strong statistical relationship. 

 

*** This is not to say that solar activity did not play a signficant role in modulating the past 2000 years of climate (and on much longer timescales as well). Solar activity was one of the primary forcings behind the much slower and smaller climate variations of the last 2000 years. Solar activity, combined with changes in volcanic activity combined to produce a temperature variation of ~.5C from MWP to LIA. This longer timescale also allowed for the full feedback climate sensitivity response, whereas our current warming is still far from equilibrium because it has occurred so much faster. 

 

You must be talking about the Usoskin et al. study I posted back, since the Scherer et al. 2006 chart shows a perfect match between temperatures and solar activity over the last 2000 years or so.

 

Usoskin et al. conclude that based off of the data,

 

This indicates that periods of higher solar

activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated

with warmer climate, and vice versa. The major part of this

correlation is due to similar long-term trends in the data sets.

[Snow_Miser]

We are no where near any sort of cooling.

 

2012 is the record high for OHC levels, 2013 will almost certainly break that record.

 

Even with benign start, UAH, GISS, NCDC, and RSS are all poised for top 5 finishes on record, even the record snow cover is not doing much to help.  Which makes me believe that goes both ways and I have definitely over estimated it's impact on global temps.

 

 

 

 

 

That's assuming the NODC dataset is correct. If we assume the UKMO EN3 dataset is correct, we are now in a negative energy imbalance.

 

 

 

 

Not even the deep ocean shows warming on the UKMO EN3 dataset:

 

 

One thing is consistent between the two datasets though. That is, that the model used in Hansen et al. has grossly overestimated the amount of heat intake in the upper ocean over the last several years.

 

Both of the datasets are indicating a very very small change in temperatures. While the heat capacity of the ocean is far greater than the atmosphere, do you really think we can measure such small temperature changes with ARGO with such precise accuracy?

 

Both Heat Content datasets should be taken with a grain of salt.

[skierinvermont]

You need to familiarize yourself with the latest OHC research. Study after study has concluded large increases in OHC and all find approximately a +.5W/m2 energy imbalance. EN3 is not 0-2000m and there is strong evidence of warming below 700m. And it does not include XBT corrections. 

 

You can't even replicate the EN3 graph you are posting. The only "source" for that data is a blogger named Bob Tisdale. Why don't you try downloading the XBT-corrected EN3 data from the Met Office? It is similar to the NODC data.

 

0-2000m OHC is fairly consistent with Hansen's model. And yes, Hansen relied upon 0-700m in his paper because that was what was available at the time, but the model was predicting the entire planetary energy imbalance which includes below 700m. Thus 0-2000m OHC is what should be used. 

 

Finally, the rapidly rising sea levels, which ice melt alone cannot come close to accounting for, guarantees that OHC is increasing. The idea that the planets energy imbalance is negative is not considered even a remote possibility outside a small circle of delusional bloggers. No study even has 0W/m2 within the error bars.

[Snow_Miser]

You need to familiarize yourself with the latest OHC research. Study after study has concluded large increases in OHC and all find approximately a +.5W/m2 energy imbalance. EN3 is not 0-2000m and there is strong evidence of warming below 700m. And it does not include XBT corrections. 

 

You can't even replicate the EN3 graph you are posting. The only "source" for that data is a blogger named Bob Tisdale. Why don't you try downloading the XBT-corrected EN3 data from the Met Office? It is similar to the NODC data.

 

0-2000m OHC is fairly consistent with Hansen's model. And yes, Hansen relied upon 0-700m in his paper because that was what was available at the time, but the model was predicting the entire planetary energy imbalance which includes below 700m. Thus 0-2000m OHC is what should be used. 

 

Finally, the rapidly rising sea levels, which ice melt alone cannot come close to accounting for, guarantees that OHC is increasing. The idea that the planets energy imbalance is negative is not considered even a remote possibility outside a small circle of delusional bloggers. No study even has 0W/m2 within the error bars.

 

A few points.

 

The second graph that I posted includes the 0-2000 meters from the UKMO EN3 dataset and the NODC dataset. Let's assume that the XBT corrections are not in the UKMO EN3 dataset. How accurate are those changes? Do we absolutely know that these changes are accurate? These changes may make the difference between a positive energy imbalance and a negative energy imbalance, since the actual temperature changes taking place in the ocean are very very small.

 

I do not replicate the data because I do not have time to replicate the data. I have other things to do besides researching Climate Change and replying to your posts on American Weather.

 

I'm not sure how 0-2000 meters would compare to Hansen's Energy Balance model with the NODC dataset. We can see that with assuming the UKMO EN3 dataset to be correct over 0-2000 meters, Hansen's model would have grossly overestimated the amount of warming and heat content intake during this period, since there was essentially no change in the 0-2000 meter heat content during this period.

 

 

There's this interesting paper about the relationship between the anthropogenic forcing/Global Temperatures and Sea Level Rise that was published last year. The link between Sea Level, the anthropogenic forcing, and Climate Change is weak at best during the 20th Century according to Gregory et al. 2012.

 

Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

[skierinvermont]

A few points.

 

The second graph that I posted includes the 0-2000 meters from the UKMO EN3 dataset and the NODC dataset. Let's assume that the XBT corrections are not in the UKMO EN3 dataset. How accurate are those changes? Do we absolutely know that these changes are accurate? These changes may make the difference between a positive energy imbalance and a negative energy imbalance, since the actual temperature changes taking place in the ocean are very very small.

 

I do not replicate the data because I do not have time to replicate the data. I have other things to do besides researching Climate Change and replying to your posts on American Weather.

 

I'm not sure how 0-2000 meters would compare to Hansen's Energy Balance model with the NODC dataset. We can see that with assuming the UKMO EN3 dataset to be correct over 0-2000 meters, Hansen's model would have grossly overestimated the amount of warming and heat content intake during this period, since there was essentially no change in the 0-2000 meter heat content during this period.

 

 

There's this interesting paper about the relationship between the anthropogenic forcing/Global Temperatures and Sea Level Rise that was published last year. The link between Sea Level, the anthropogenic forcing, and Climate Change is weak at best during the 20th Century according to Gregory et al. 2012.

 

Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

 

 

The accuracy or lack thereof of the XBT-corrections is demonstrated by the confidence intervals on OHC estimates. Unless you've read the studies, found error in their methodology and can demonstrate that to a group of people literate in the field, then you have zero basis for doubting the finding of a large positive energy imbalance other than dogma. It is worth noting that there has been some reduction in the positive energy imbalance in the last decade, possibly due to decreased TSI and/or increased aerosols, but it is still quite positive. I am guessing it is still a bit less than Hansen's model, but I'm not sure either. 

[Snow_Miser]

The accuracy or lack thereof of the XBT-corrections is demonstrated by the confidence intervals on OHC estimates. Unless you've read the studies, found error in their methodology and can demonstrate that to a group of people literate in the field, then you have zero basis for doubting the finding of a large positive energy imbalance other than dogma. It is worth noting that there has been some reduction in the positive energy imbalance in the last decade, possibly due to decreased TSI and/or increased aerosols, but it is still quite positive. I am guessing it is still a bit less than Hansen's model, but I'm not sure either. 

 

That's the thing. The confidence intervals is largely where my skepticism is with the OHC datasets; both the NODC and the UKMO EN3 datasets. They claim to have an error margin of +/-0.004 Degree C. Sorry, but I can't buy how any observational dataset can be so accurate that it can detect changes under a hundredth of a degree. Call me skeptical.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The age old denier spin game.

 

Take a busted prediction from one they call an "alarmist" and compare it to reality to create a perceived reality for those who wish that to be true.

 

It was done with the sea ice masterfully from 2009-2011.