2014 Global Temperatures

[GaWx]

She's just wrong. You don't need to be a statistician to see global temperature correlation to the PDO is weak in a multidecadal sense. In fact, solar irradiance is a much better explanation for long term (10+ year trends) prior to 1950 when AGW became strong enough to overwhelm most natural factors over a multi-decadal time frame. All this PDO talk will probably stop in the next few years. At the end of the day, this is a lot of scrambling in the climatological and skeptic community to explain a completely reasonable flatline of global temperatures between 2008-2013.

I'm confused about the PDO's effects on global temperatures, myself. The AMO is somewhat clearer to me.

[Isotherm]

There's fairly robust evidence in the literature concerning solar variability being a significant factor in global temperatures throughout the past 100+ years. I can post numerous peer-reviewed papers on the topic, but it would probably be best to start a new thread solely concerning solar related forcing mechanisms. As a few of us have said on here, the next 5-10 years will certainly be revealing in terms of drivers, namely, the magnitude that certain forcings are affecting global temperatures.

 

Solar forcing, while not increasing from 1960-2000, was consistently very high and higher than any period back through the 1700s. The most recent solar cycle 24 is the first such solar cycle that we can objectively say featured much lower activity compared to the majority of cycles in the 20th century.

[GaWx]

There's fairly robust evidence in the literature concerning solar variability being a significant factor in global temperatures throughout the past 100+ years. I can post numerous peer-reviewed papers on the topic, but it would probably be best to start a new thread solely concerning solar related forcing mechanisms. As a few of us have said on here, the next 5-10 years will certainly be revealing in terms of drivers, namely, the magnitude that certain forcings are affecting global temperatures.

 

Solar forcing, while not increasing from 1960-2000, was consistently very high and higher than any period back through the 1700s. The most recent solar cycle 24 is the first such solar cycle that we can objectively say featured much lower activity compared to the majority of cycles in the 20th century.

 

 What I bolded of yours matches my thinking quite well about the sun, especially the idea that the sun likely remained a net positive factor for global warming into the first years of the 2000's. I still keep thinking about how max temp.'s on a sunny day without a new airmass coming through typically don't occur til pretty late in the afternoon. Also, I keep thinking about the hottest/coldest days being a good month or so past the summer/winter solstices. How much lag is there? How long does it take for temperatures to turn around and finally cool due to the weaker sun? I'd think it has to take some time. But how long? Also, could the southern hemisphere be reacting earlier than the northern for whatever reason?

 

Also, are there indirect cooling effects that are additive that would occur from a longlasting grand solar min??

 

 You could always put those things in the generally quiet "All things Solar" topic.

[skierinvermont]

The recent papers support the PDO/ENSO idea and reject aerosols. A newer paper addresses the role of the

Atlantic in hiatus periods.  It could just be an interplay between the Atlantic and Pacific and these

authors of the Atlantic paper chose to focus more on the contribution of the Atlantic.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100922132002.htm

 

The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution.

 

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf

 

One notable aspect of the two most recent extended hiatus periods (1940–1975 and 2001–present), in contrast to periods of global SAT warming (1910–1940 and 1976–2000), is that they correspond closely to periods when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation18–20 (IPO) has been in a negative phase (Fig. 1a). The IPO manifests as a low-frequency El Niño-like pattern of climate variability, with a warm tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds during its positive phase, and a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds during its negative phase. Recent analyses of climate model simulations suggest that hiatus decades are linked to negative phases of the IPO (refs 2,3,11). Here we examine the most recent hiatus in this context, particularly in relation to altered ocean dynamics and enhanced ocean heat uptake, and assess implications for the coming decades.

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

 

 

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to have been caused by air pollution.) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return. But Tung emphasizes it’s hard to predict what will happen next.

A pool of freshwater from melting ice now sitting in the Arctic Ocean, for example, could overflow into the North Atlantic to upset the cycle.

“We are not talking about a normal situation because there are so many other things happening due to climate change,” Tung said.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

###

 

 

I think you have overstated the conclusions of those papers, and personally, I don't find them at all persuasive.

 

The argument from the Nature article seems to be that because the oceans cooled rapidly 1968-1972 that the entire 30 year hiatus may be due to the oceans and not aerosols. This is not persuasive or conclusive in my opinion. 

 

The rapid drop in temperatures occurred in a background state of no net warming. I have no doubt that changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics can cause abrupt cooling events (1945-1950 and 1968-1972). But the background state is what will determine the 30-yr trend. Without aerosol negative forcing 1945-1976, the interim period of 1950-1968 (after the PDO flip and before the AMO flip) may have shown more warming. In addition, the abrupt cooling events centered around the PDO and AMO flips would have been slightly smaller. 

 

 

Again, pointing out short term cooling events associated with the AMO and PDO does not - and CANNOT - prove what the background state is. 

 

The picture is simple and clear: The PDO and AMO caused short-term cooling events embedded within a period of no net anthropogenic forcing. Pointing out the occurrence of these short-term cooling events does not and cannot provide attribution of long-term trends.

 

 

Attribution to aerosols is clear and simple: The earth had a net energy balance during this period near zero. This empirically proves that net forcing was near-zero. In addition, theoretical attribution by climate models also shows that aerosol forcing cancelled GHG forcing for net-zero forcing. 

[bluewave]

I think you have overstated the conclusions of those papers, and personally, I don't find them at all persuasive.

 

The argument from the Nature article seems to be that because the oceans cooled rapidly 1968-1972 that the entire 30 year hiatus may be due to the oceans and not aerosols. This is not persuasive or conclusive in my opinion. 

 

The rapid drop in temperatures occurred in a background state of no net warming. I have no doubt that changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics can cause abrupt cooling events (1945-1950 and 1968-1972). But the background state is what will determine the 30-yr trend. Without aerosol negative forcing 1945-1976, the interim period of 1950-1968 (after the PDO flip and before the AMO flip) may have shown more warming. In addition, the abrupt cooling events centered around the PDO and AMO flips would have been slightly smaller. 

 

 

Again, pointing out short term cooling events associated with the AMO and PDO does not - and CANNOT - prove what the background state is. 

 

The picture is simple and clear: The PDO and AMO caused short-term cooling events embedded within a period of no net anthropogenic forcing. Pointing out the occurrence of these short-term cooling events does not and cannot provide attribution of long-term trends.

 

 

Attribution to aerosols is clear and simple: The earth had a net energy balance during this period near zero. This empirically proves that net forcing was near-zero. In addition, theoretical attribution by climate models also shows that aerosol forcing cancelled GHG forcing for net-zero forcing. 

 

So now this about your opinion carrying more weight than the actual scientific studies? You are changing the subject

when you mention background state since I am not making that argument and neither are the papers. Their conclusions

continue to be that ocean cycles modulate the global temperatures over multi-decade intervals and longer term is AGW. Aerosols are a poor excuse for the 46-76 period and the current hiatus.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060349/abstract?campaign=agupersonalchoice

 

 

Abstract

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996 and 2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes by 0.06 W/m² during 1996 to 2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m². The rather large ERF arises mainly from changes in cloudiness, especially in Europe. In Asia, the BC warming due to sunlight absorption has largely offset the cooling caused by sulphate aerosols. Asian BC concentrations have increased by a nearly constant fraction at all altitudes, and thus, they warm the atmosphere also in cloudy conditions.

[nflwxman]

 

So now this about your opinion carrying more weight than the actual scientific studies? You are changing the subject

when you mention background state since I am not making that argument and neither are the papers. Their conclusions

continue to be that ocean cycles modulate the global temperatures over multi-decade intervals and longer term is AGW. Aerosols are a poor excuse for the 46-76 period and the current hiatus.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060349/abstract?campaign=agupersonalchoice

 

 

Abstract

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996 and 2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes by 0.06 W/m² during 1996 to 2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m². The rather large ERF arises mainly from changes in cloudiness, especially in Europe. In Asia, the BC warming due to sunlight absorption has largely offset the cooling caused by sulphate aerosols. Asian BC concentrations have increased by a nearly constant fraction at all altitudes, and thus, they warm the atmosphere also in cloudy conditions.

 

Noone is suggesting aerosols are primarily responsible for the current hiatus.  It's the fact that ENSO went from primarily positive in the early 2000s to primarily negative in the late 2000s to present.  We can attribute that to the PDO shift, but it won't last much longer unless ENSO continues to plunge even further negative or forcing changes.  It's really that simple.

 

The problem with 1945-1975 is that you are ignoring the OHC data.  The OHC data was stagnant in the late 50s to the earl 70s, suggesting no planetary imbalance.  We can confirm this with multiple levels of evidence.  So you are basically stating that data is wrong by claiming it was primarily the PDO that led to a multi-decadal slowdown? Empirical studies are nice, but they are quite literally ignoring physics here.  These studies are not making the sweeping conclusions that you are based on aforementioned fact alone.  This is also another reason why empirically based ECS studies are flawed, they struggle with attribution.

 

[bluewave]

Noone is suggesting aerosols are primarily responsible for the current hiatus.  It's the fact that ENSO went from primarily positive in the early 2000s to primarily negative in the late 2000s to present.  We can attribute that to the PDO shift, but it won't last much longer unless ENSO continues to plunge even further negative or forcing changes.  It's really that simple.

 

The problem with 1945-1975 is that you are ignoring the OHC data.  The OHC data was stagnant in the late 50s to the earl 70s, suggesting no planetary imbalance.  We can confirm this with multiple levels of evidence.  So you are basically stating that data is wrong by claiming it was primarily the PDO that led to a multi-decadal slowdown? Empirical studies are nice, but they are quite literally ignoring physics here.  These studies are not making the sweeping conclusions that you are based on aforementioned fact alone.  This is also another reason why empirically based ECS studies are flawed, they struggle with attribution.

 

 

The data is clear that the +PDO was responsible for the timing of the  early century warming and 

-PDO for the hiatus that followed. What do you think the OHC data would have showed different 

between 1910-1945 if it was available when temperatures were rising?

 

 

One notable aspect of the two most recent extended hiatus periods (1940–1975 and 2001–present), in contrast to periods of global SAT warming (1910–1940 and 1976–2000), is that they correspond closely to periods when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation18–20 (IPO) has been in a negative phase (Fig. 1a). The IPO manifests as a low-frequency El Niño-like pattern of climate variability, with a warm tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds during its positive phase, and a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds during its negative phase. Recent analyses of climate model simulations suggest that hiatus decades are linked to negative phases of the IPO (refs 2,3,11). Here we examine the most recent hiatus in this context, particularly in relation to altered ocean dynamics and enhanced ocean heat uptake, and assess implications for the coming decades.

[nflwxman]

The data is clear that the +PDO was responsible for the early century warming and the -PDO for the hiatus that followed

 

One notable aspect of the two most recent extended hiatus periods (1940–1975 and 2001–present), in contrast to periods of global SAT warming (1910–1940 and 1976–2000), is that they correspond closely to periods when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation18–20 (IPO) has been in a negative phase (Fig. 1a). The IPO manifests as a low-frequency El Niño-like pattern of climate variability, with a warm tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds during its positive phase, and a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds during its negative phase. Recent analyses of climate model simulations suggest that hiatus decades are linked to negative phases of the IPO (refs 2,3,11). Here we examine the most recent hiatus in this context, particularly in relation to altered ocean dynamics and enhanced ocean heat uptake, and assess implications for the coming decades.

 

Is it though?

 

I see increased forcing in that time related to solar irradiance and lack of volcanism.  The PDO did trend positively though.  What skier and I are talking about are how future temperatures can be expected to react in a multi-decadal sense.  If you expect the hiatus to last until 2030, you have to prove that the 0-700m layer won't warm.  By virtue that the forcing is increasing means that upper layer of the ocean has to warm.  Unless you think the bottom of the pacific will become an even GREATER sink of heat than it is now, the surface has no choice but to warm.  The PDO has already tanked, do you believe it will continue to go lower later this decade? Do you expect a 15 year PDO and ENSO trend in 2023 to be negative?  If not, we should resume warming at a normal or faster than normal rate in the short term.

 

If the PDO/ENSO shows some type of trend over a 30 year period, than it can impact global temperatures in a multi-decadal sense.  There is no substantial trend in the PDO between 1945-1975, lending credence to aerosol theory, while there is a trend between 1915-1945.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1915/to:1945/mean:12

 

You don't have to look any further than the last 2 years of OHC data to see that the upward acceleration has restarted since the PDO/ENSO tanking has halted.

[ORH_wxman]

nflwxman,

 

Your graph shows a substantial OHC increase from the late 1950s to 1975. There's a dip in the early 1960s...potentially related to the eruption of Agung...though it certainly doesn't match well with what happened around Pinatubo, a much stronger eruption.

 

 

This is assumming that OHC data is accurate on that fine a scale to begin with. There's been a ton of revisions to NODC and I've seen a lot of different reconstructions in other papers....some show negative OHC trend from 1950-1975 while others show it increasing. This is an issue when trying to use data like OHC over a fairly short period. The same can be said for most datasets, though temperature is far more accurate from the middle 20th century than OHC data is, esp 0-2000m. So its impossible to say that one is "ignoring physics" when making that type of attribution with that type of data over a 2-3 decade period.

 

If it was as simple as ignoring physics, there wouldn't be this much debate or uncertainty in the literature about forcings during this period...nevermind the post-2000 period.

[bluewave]

Is it though?

 

I see increased forcing in that time related to solar irradiance and lack of volcanism.  If you are talking about that spike between 1940-1945 and than subsequent drop off, than yes that has to do with the ENSO.  What skier and I are talking about are how future temperatures can be expected to react in a multi-decadal sense.  If you expect the hiatus to last until 2030, you have to prove that the 0-700m layer won't warm.  By virtue that the forcing is increasing means that upper layer of the ocean has to warm.  Unless you think the bottom of the pacific will become an even GREATER sink of heat than it is now.

 

You don't have to look any further than the last 2 years of OHC data to see that the upward acceleration has restarted.

 

The spike between 40-45 was just the ending of the +IPO temperature rise that began near the shift to positive in 1920. The El Nino which kicked off that +IPO era in 1920 was much stronger than was perviously thought to be.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Gieseetal2009.pdf

 

An ocean model forced with winds from an atmospheric reanalysis of the first half of the twentieth century shows that the 1918/19 El Niño was much stronger than previously thought.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

We refer to that early OHC data as a fairytale reconstruction(s). Really, it's not even worthy of discussion because it's based largely on tide gauge data which is interpolated within the steric/expansion equations.

The potential for error is huge.

[nflwxman]

nflwxman,

 

Your graph shows a substantial OHC increase from the late 1950s to 1975. There's a dip in the early 1960s...potentially related to the eruption of Agung...though it certainly doesn't match well with what happened around Pinatubo, a much stronger eruption.

 

 

This is assumming that OHC data is accurate on that fine a scale to begin with. There's been a ton of revisions to NODC and I've seen a lot of different reconstructions in other papers....some show negative OHC trend from 1950-1975 while others show it increasing. This is an issue when trying to use data like OHC over a fairly short period. The same can be said for most datasets, though temperature is far more accurate from the middle 20th century than OHC data is, esp 0-2000m. So its impossible to say that one is "ignoring physics" when making that type of attribution with that type of data over a 2-3 decade period.

 

If it was as simple as ignoring physics, there wouldn't be this much debate or uncertainty in the literature about forcings during this period...nevermind the post-2000 period.

Well, that's why I left the possibility open that the early data is incorrect or too uncertain.  That's certainty worth acknowledging, but the empirical papers leave OHC out entirely and try to force a causation.  It's not very compelling.

 

The spike between 40-45 was just the ending of the +IPO temperature rise that began near the shift to positive in 1920. The El Nino which kicked off that +IPO era in 1920 was stronger that was perviously thought to be.

 

 

An ocean model forced with winds from an atmospheric reanalysis of the first half of the twentieth century shows that the 1918/19 El Niño was much stronger than previously thought.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Gieseetal2009.pdf

Screen shot 2014-09-17 at 3.12.09 PM.png

There is no PDO trend between 1945-1975 there, yet greenhouse gas forcing kept rising.  What stopped the earth from warming?

 

There is a pretty strongly negative PDO trend between 1975-2014.  How could the PDO be responsible for the warm up in that period when it's trended negative?

 

 

. 

[Isotherm]

We refer to that early OHC data as a fairytale reconstruction(s). Really, it's not even worthy of discussion because it's based largely on tide gauge data which is interpolated within the steric/expansion equations.

The potential for error is huge.

 

 

Even with the recent OHC, one can find strong divergence in terms of interpretation of data for the past 30-40 years. OHC charts are often posted here as if they're indisputable truth, when in reality, there's quite a bit of disagreement within the literature on OHC changes, in the various levels of the oceans, throughout time.

[bluewave]

Well, that's why I left the possibility open that the early data is incorrect or too uncertain.  That's certainty worth acknowledging, but the empirical papers leave OHC out entirely and try to force a causation.  It's not very compelling.

 

There is no PDO trend between 1945-1975 there, yet greenhouse gas forcing kept rising.  What stopped the earth from warming?

. 

 

The PDO/IPO was negative so how can you say that there was no trend?

[nflwxman]

The PDO/IPO was negative so how can you say that there was no trend?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1945/to:1974/mean:12

 

Basically trend-less.  It's just a climate shift in 1945.  After that there is no trend until 1975 when rapid warming began.

 

Climatologists have looked all these variables pretty exhaustively.  There is a reason the PDO was discounted long ago for a main driver of the warming the last 25 years.

 

You have to look no further than here.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:2015/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2015/mean:12/scale:5

[ORH_wxman]

Well, that's why I left the possibility open that the early data is incorrect or too uncertain.  That's certainty worth acknowledging, but the empirical papers leave OHC out entirely and try to force a causation.  It's not very compelling.

 

There is no PDO trend between 1945-1975 there, yet greenhouse gas forcing kept rising.  What stopped the earth from warming?

 

There is a pretty strongly negative PDO trend between 1975-2014.  How could the PDO be responsible for the warm up in that period when it's trended negative?

 

 

. 

 

 

There was a pretty steep AMO trend from positive to negative...it typically lags the PDO by about 15 years.

 

 

The aerosol argument isn't very compelling either ...this isn't saying it had no effect, but being the primary variable is weak in the literature.

[bluewave]

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1945/to:1974/mean:12

 

Basically trend-less.  It's just a climate shift in 1945.  After that there is no trend until 1975 when rapid warming began.

 

Climatologists have looked all these variables pretty exhaustively.  There is a reason the PDO was discounted long ago for a main driver of the warming the last 25 years.

 

You have to look no further than here.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:2015/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2015/mean:12/scale:5

 

So what don't you get about the temperatures holding relatively steady during that hiatus before taking off

when in ended in 1976?

[nflwxman]

So what don't you get about the temperatures holding relatively steady during that hiatus before taking off

when in ended in 1976?

We agree on that.  But the impact is far shorter than you give credit.  It's just a shift, not a lingering process.  Unless you can prove there is a signficiant trend on the PDO in a multi-decadal sense, it won't impact multi-decadal temperature trends.  It likely did not impact the 30 year trend between 1945-1975 based on that fact.  Hence where aerosols come in.

 

There certainly was a trend on the PDO between 1915-1945, and in response, it helped rise global temperatures along with solar and lack of volcanoes in that period.

 

You didn't answer my question above.  Do you think the PDO will have a 10 year trend that is negative between 2008-2018? If the answer is no, I submit the PDO will have little to no impact on halting the global temperature rise in that same period (it could do the opposite).  It's really that simple. 

[ORH_wxman]

We agree on that.  But the impact is far shorter than you give credit.  It's just a shift, not a lingering process.  Unless you can prove there is a signficiant trend on the PDO in a multi-decadal sense, it won't impact multi-decadal temperature trends.  It likely did not impact the 30 year trend between 1945-1975.  

 

There certainly was a trend on the PDO between 1915-1945, as it helped rise global temperatures along with solar and lack of volcanoes.

 

You didn't answer my question above.  Do you think the PDO will have a 10 year trend that is negative between 2008-2018? If not, I submit the PDO will have little to no impact on halting the global temperature rise.  It's really that simple. 

 

 

The paper he linked shows that continued wind stress on the Pacific could be due to anthropogenically warmed water in the west or the Indian Ocean. The paper also showed that the 1945-1975 hiatus was mostly from 1945-1965 from the -IPO...the continued 1965-1975 period was likely due to a combo of aerosols and a drop in the AMO.

 

The PDO is a little different than the trade winds itself, though they both involve more frequent La Nina when in the negative phase.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well, most of the CONUS is certainly due for a big torch!

WaterTDeptUS.png

Awesome. Certainly gonna help blow the doors off the hiatus.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Thank you for a sensible post to some of the madness I'm reading. You guys trying to downplay PDO influence seem like...deniers. Honestly...do you really believe that?

I've written half dozen posts highlighting the impacts of the PDO and Major solar drop happening at the same time and how the literature suggests around a -.3C of cooling.

It's been almost a decade and their has been no cooling. The ocean surface is record warm. The upper subsurface is record warm . The 300-1500m region has warmed substantially just like one would expect with a major -PDO.

Yet no surface cooling.

Add on the once in a century solar plunge which should have added more cooling simultaneously.

But it didn't at all.

We have also learned the Southern Ocean where Ssta dropped sharply when the PDO plummeted and sea ice began to increase in area she's seen a massive increase in 300-1500M ohc at the same time.

Guess where that is headed?

The Equatorial Pacific and Equatorial Indian Oceans.

When the effects of the PDO and sun are laid out in those contexts no one will touch it.

Because it means a force strong enough to completely negate and over ride that combo is working.

The PDO is top heavy. We are closing in on one decade down with in theory two more to go of a -PDO and warming is already overwhelming it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the ‘current cool phase will continue until the 2030s’"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

Remind her that there has been no cooling yet.

Also remind her that when warming took place in the 1970s. The Earth was much colder at the surface and oceans.

To maintain the level of warmth we have achieved requires a much much stronger force then the one that started the warming.

A decade into her cooling ideas and those cooling forces are being overwhelmed.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I remember back in 2010 how 2011 was the year solar was gonna do it.

Then it was 2012 and 2013. After 2013 that talk has now been pushed back to later in the decade.

Good thing since 2014 hasn't gone with the solar plan.

Inspite of the weakest solar max in 90 years coming off the weakest solar min in 100 years.

Coming off a solar max that declined from the previous two.

[The_Global_Warmer]

After dropping all the way to almost 0.0C on the weatherbell dailies.

 

They have shot back up above .15C+.

 

The monthlies have dropped to 0.180C+.

 

With the commencement of the warm NA pattern except the dailies to oscillate upwards into the .3-4C range shortly.

 

 

 

TAO has the +4C anomaly now. 

 

 

 

The focal point of the medium range torch moves around.  But somewhere over NA as well as North Central Russia is expected to be above normal.

 

The other thing is the central NPAC is going to warm up and likely completely off set any cooling in the NPAC and NATL.

 

ENSO is warming as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The South Atlantic has cooled off quite a bit.  It's the only region of major substance that is cool enough right now to be a player in the global temp regime. 

 

However the West Central SPAC has warmed up quite a bit as is twice as large. 

 

The key region to keep an eye on is the NEPAC which has actually warmed so far.

 

The North Central NATL has cooled off.  However warm anomalies are now growing further South in the sub-tropics and tropics.

 

 

[stadiumwave]

You are aware that Climate Depot is a denier site, right? I see there are some big claims Judith Curry made but does not really delve into how cooling will occur. As the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Here's some info on the think tank sponsoring her speech:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

Dr. Curry IS NOT sponsored by any big oil companies & she's not a denier. You've just shown your not qualified to post in this thread.

[HailMan06]

Dr. Curry IS NOT sponsored by any big oil companies & she's not a denier. You've just shown your not qualified to post in this thread.

I did not say she was sponsored by any oil company. The EVENT she was speaking to was being sponsored by an organization that formerly was funded by Exxon, not her. Nor did I say she was a denier. I said the site she was linked in was a denier site.

[stadiumwave]

I've written half dozen posts highlighting the impacts of the PDO and Major solar drop happening at the same time and how the literature suggests around a -.3C of cooling.

It's been almost a decade and their has been no cooling. The ocean surface is record warm. The upper subsurface is record warm . The 300-1500m region has warmed substantially just like one would expect with a major -PDO.

Yet no surface cooling.

Add on the once in a century solar plunge which should have added more cooling simultaneously.

But it didn't at all.

We have also learned the Southern Ocean where Ssta dropped sharply when the PDO plummeted and sea ice began to increase in area she's seen a massive increase in 300-1500M ohc at the same time.

Guess where that is headed?

The Equatorial Pacific and Equatorial Indian Oceans.

When the effects of the PDO and sun are laid out in those contexts no one will touch it.

Because it means a force strong enough to completely negate and over ride that combo is working.

The PDO is top heavy. We are closing in on one decade down with in theory two more to go of a -PDO and warming is already overwhelming it.

Your wrong on the slight cooling trend...there is a slight cooling trend since 2002 that is clearly shown on just about every temperature dataset. Certainly it would be more if it were not for GHG.

There's plenty of peer-reviewed literature that disagrees with you on the PDO. But I certainly do not deny GHG's are offsetting to some degree -PDO cycle effects. "Attribution" is very difficult to ascertain at this point. Before we start throwing this & that out the window we need to wait another 20 years or so & see. We do have El Niño conditions forming & sst's are certainly very high in certain regions as a result. AMO is still in positive cycle also. I do believe we will return to a strong La Niña after we finally do experience an El Niño. Would not be surprised to have a strong -ENSO for 2 consecutive years. Cooling will accelerate when AMO flips to negative, cool cycle although it will still be slight cooling in my opinion due to GHG forcing.

All in all...I do not see "catastrophic" warming taking place but I do agree with a warmer future. Warming on the planet will be better & not worse for humanity.; although I do prefer cold.

[stadiumwave]

I did not say she was sponsored by any oil company. The EVENT she was speaking to was being sponsored by an organization that formerly was funded by Exxon, not her. Nor did I say she was a denier. I said the site she was linked in was a denier site.

Gotcha...sorry, I didn't read it that way. Most of her research has been funded by NOAA & NASA.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What's the trend since 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013?

 

Sounds like you don't want to have a serious discussion.

 

 

Cooling will accelerate when the AMO flips to negative?  Yeah.  Surely 8 percent of the oceans surface cooling 0.1C to 0.2C from it's already well above the baseline average will cause accelerated cooling that GHGs will only offset?

 

SSTS are not high in some regions they have crushed global records and ENSO had very little to do with it.

 

 

ENSO hasn't even started.  The ONI the last month was 0.0C wen the record ssts took place.

 

OHC is at record levels and has broken it's own season record 7 of the last 8 quarters.

 

 

0-700M OHC by monthly quarters.  JFM, AMJ, JAS, OND.

 

 

 

1997 4.489667 3.966333 2.623000 2.481667
1998 2.923000 4.564000 4.233666 4.667000
1999 5.311333 5.555000 5.979333 6.446667
2000 5.347667 5.886667 6.933333 5.767333
2001 3.740666 2.846333 3.051666 6.036000
2002 6.152667 6.888333 7.660666 6.813000
2003 7.953667 9.574667 9.607666 10.90900
2004 11.23300 10.26267 9.807667 10.11467
2005 8.797667 8.326334 8.054333 8.804000
2006 9.989667 10.05267 10.50100 10.71400
2007 10.15533 9.173667 9.345333 9.599333
2008 10.38900 10.48700 10.37367 9.259333
2009 9.682334 9.459667 10.10233 10.61633
2010 11.00633 10.14200 9.812000 10.46767
2011 10.73467 10.27100 11.43200 11.09433
2012 11.35733 10.64833 10.46100 11.06400
2013 12.78100 12.54400 11.45967 12.82500
2014 14.06633 13.36000 -999.9000 -999.9000

 

 

 

Good luck with your cooling. 

[HailMan06]

Gotcha...sorry, I didn't read it that way. Most of her research has been funded by NOAA & NASA.

No hard feelings.