Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[skierinvermont]

Both ENSO and the PDO were predominately positive through 2007, so I disagree with that. The PDO largely began to shift negative in the 2007-08 time frame, and we had a greater amount of time w/ +ENSO than -ENSO in the 2000-2007 period.

 

Solar wise, we didn't dive into the minimum of cycle 23 until the late 2000s, and solar cycles were still quite strong through the late 90s/early part of the 2000s. Flux didn't begin a significant decline until late 2005.

 

This just proves the point. The sun and ENSO and the PDO were warm early in the period (2000-2005/2007) and cold for the last 7-9 years of the period. That creates a natural cooling trend. Except we've actually still been warming slowly because of the stronger anthropogenic underlying warming. 

[skierinvermont]

I think we can eliminate the Sun and cloud cover as causes. Both CERES and AIRS find an OLR increase during this time when adjusting for ENSO, suggesting that a combination of ENSO, stronger winds over the oceans, and Aerosol forcing may be to blame

 

How can you possibly eliminate the sun? The sun has unquestionably caused a natural cooling component over the last 10-15 years. The suns output has decreased .5W/m2 which is a forcing of .125W/m2. That is small but significant. 

[sokolow]

Thank you for posting that graph, but it does lead to more questions. In your chart the temperature anomaly difference between the max (circa 850 AD) and the min (circa 1590 AD) is about 1.2 C. On the NASA chart that same period had a difference of about 0.3 C, a factor of 4 less. Why the extreme difference in magnitudes? If your chart were extended to today the temperature anomaly woud would be a full 2 C over the baseline and about 2.6 C over the lowest value on your graph. Values which, you may agree, would be incredibly high. It is not just a matter of different baselines since the values themselves differ by a factor of four. Could you share the source for your graph? Perhaps there is info there on how they calculated their values.

If the NASA graphic is drawn from Mann 2008, then the spread between the warmest and coldest centuries prior to 1900 should be .5C, the warmest and coldest decades, 1C

edit per Ljungqvist's NH reconstruction comparison, doesn't change the fact that Loehle produces the widest spread of MCA LIA temps

[FloridaJohn]

Dr. Roy Spencer dot com linking

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES by Craig Loehle

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007

image.jpg

edit that paper is a beaut

double edit i also see this paper has a long and storied history

go have a read

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf

 

Here is RealClimate's take on that paper.

 

"What does this imply for Loehle’s reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss. Of the 18 original records, only 5 are potentially useful for comparing late 20th Century temperatures to medieval times, and they don’t have enough coverage to say anything significant about global trends. It’s not clear to me what impact fixing the various problems would be or what that would imply for the error bars, but as it stands, this reconstruction unfortunately does not add anything to the discussion."

[StudentOfClimatology]

How can you possibly eliminate the sun? The sun has unquestionably caused a natural cooling component over the last 10-15 years. The suns output has decreased .5W/m2 which is a forcing of .125W/m2. That is small but significant.

Because solar activity is higher now than it has been in over a decade, so that component is not relevant anymore. Plus, much of the latest literature has found that the upper-oceanic mixing layer must operate on a 30-50yr response-resolution, as this layer is both deeper than we initially thought, and is heavily influenced by surface wind speeds..it's only very recently that we've had adequate data in that arena. So the 11yr solar cycle probably can't do much.

Here's TSI over the "pause" period, vs NCDC. Doesn't look like the Sun had anything to do with it, at least as far as the 11yr cycle is concerned.

[bluewave]

The other thing to take into account is that the record trade wind regime since 97-98 has

probably been limiting the El Nino strength. Notice how even during the last -PDO/IPO

era from the 50's to 70's there were stronger El Ninos than we have seen over the last

17 years. The PDO turning temporarily positive in the early 2000's after the late 90's drop 

couldn't produce an El Nino strong enough for a big jump in global temperature.

 

 

[Isotherm]

Because solar activity is higher now than it has been in over a decade, so that component is not relevant anymore. Plus, much of the latest literature has found that the upper-oceanic mixing layer must operate on a 30-50yr response-resolution, as this layer is both deeper than we initially thought, and is heavily influenced by surface wind speeds..it's only very recently that we've had adequate data in that arena. So the 11yr solar cycle probably can't do much.

Here's TSI over the "pause" period, vs NCDC. Doesn't look like the Sun had anything to do with it, at least as far as the 11yr cycle is concerned.

 

 

 

I've said this before on the forum (with back-up from peer reviewed sources), but there's much more to solar forcing than simply TSI. You're selling the Sun short in a major way.

[sokolow]

Here is RealClimate's take on that paper.

"What does this imply for Loehle’s reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss. Of the 18 original records, only 5 are potentially useful for comparing late 20th Century temperatures to medieval times, and they don’t have enough coverage to say anything significant about global trends. It’s not clear to me what impact fixing the various problems would be or what that would imply for the error bars, but as it stands, this reconstruction unfortunately does not add anything to the discussion."

Craig Loehle seems to have some interesting and intriguing ideas that I had not heard of.

From Dana Nuccitelli's analysis of Loehle & Scafetta's 2011 paper on attribution:

Figure 1: The L&S Case 2 model projected backwards in time (red), compared to the Moberg et al. (2005) millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction (blue) and the Loehle (2008) millennial global temperature reconstruction (green).

paraphrase Nuccitelli: yah that looks like a divergence problem

[nflwxman]

The other thing to take into account is that the record trade wind regime since 97-98 has

probably been limiting the El Nino strength. Notice how even during the last -PDO/IPO

era from the 50's to 70's there were stronger El Ninos than we have seen over the last

17 years. The PDO turning temporarily positive in the early 2000's after the late 90's drop 

couldn't produce an El Nino strong enough for a big jump in global temperature.

 

strong-trade-winds-hot-ocean.jpg

 

oni.jpg

A few papers have come out recently linking the trade wind strength to a gradient between the Atlantic and Pacific water temperature and that will likely reverse in the next 15 years.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Craig Loehle seems to have some interesting and intriguing ideas that I had not heard of.

From Dana Nuccitelli's analysis of Loehle & Scafetta's 2011 paper on attribution:

image.jpg

paraphrase Nuccitelli: yah that looks like a divergence problem

Having done the majority of my field work & studying in realm of paleoclimate, there is definitely more support for the more "variable" Holocene reconstructions, as opposed to the Mann et al crap that implies a lower climate sensitivity to radiative stimuli. The higher resolution proxies are naturally less prone contamination, as well.

[bluewave]

A few papers have come out recently linking the trade wind strength to a gradient between the Atlantic and Pacific water temperature and that will likely reverse in the next 15 years.

 

Also there were recent papers which focused on the record warm WPAC coupled the rising pressure trend at

Tahiti as causing the record trades. Another paper a few years ago did a proxy study on WPAC temperatures 

and came to the conclusion they were the warmest since the MWP when they believed La Ninas dominated.

[nflwxman]

Also there were recent papers which focused on the record warm WPAC coupled the rising pressure trend at

Tahiti as causing the record trades. Another paper a few years ago did a proxy study on WPAC temperatures 

and came to the conclusion they were the warmest since the MWP when they believed La Ninas dominated.

Yeah. How this impacts the long term temperature projects is probably unknown.  One could argue that La Ninas have actually warmed faster than ENSO Neutral, but that could just be a product of low sample size.

 

[sokolow]

Having done the majority of my field work & studying in realm of paleoclimate, there is definitely more support for the more "variable" Holocene reconstructions, as opposed to the Mann et al crap that implies a lower climate sensitivity to radiative stimuli. The higher resolution proxies are naturally less prone contamination, as well.

As may be but in light of the entertaining couple of hours I've had reading these two papers I wouldn't pick Loehle as my horse to ride

edit per previous discussions we've had I also think there's useful regional minmax constraints on mid-late Holocene variability, but that's me being a nerd about alpine ice

[StudentOfClimatology]

As may be but in light of the entertaining couple of hours I've had reading these two papers I wouldn't pick Loehle as my horse to ride

I've never read Loehle et al, actually. If it were an important paper, I'd have heard of it by now. I always prefer to stick with the proxies I know well, anyway.

[bluewave]

Yeah. How this impacts the long term temperature projects is probably unknown.  One could argue that La Ninas have actually warmed faster than ENSO Neutral, but that could just be a product of low sample size.

 

 

Yeah, the long term warming trend is still there in the warming La Ninas years. It's just that the overall hiatus surface air

temperature increase rate is slower relative to 77-97, but faster than the 46-76 hiatus.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah. How this impacts the long term temperature projects is probably unknown.  One could argue that La Ninas have actually warmed faster than ENSO Neutral, but that could just be a product of low sample size.

 

 

 

2014 is going to be a neutral year.  Likely around .67C+. 

 

Maybe even .68C+ if the SOND period can produce some .80C+ months.

 

I think September has a great shot at that.

[chrisf97212]

I think we can eliminate the Sun and cloud cover as causes. Both CERES and AIRS find an OLR increase during this time when adjusting for ENSO, suggesting that a combination of ENSO, stronger winds over the oceans, and Aerosol forcing may be to blame

 

If you are using OLR to eliminate cloud cover as a cause, should the same logic apply to aersols?

[chrisf97212]

I've said this before on the forum (with back-up from peer reviewed sources), but there's much more to solar forcing than simply TSI. You're selling the Sun short in a major way.

 

I've seen theories that low prolonged solar will result in greater cloud cover, although it hasn't happened yet.

[chrisf97212]

It is ok to hold this opinion as long as you realize science disagrees with you completely.  

 

When I hear someone say the science is settled, I think its fair to reply ok, what happens next?  When NASA can shoot a rocket at Mars and 6 months later it lands on the red planet, the public believes NASA knows its stuff.   When scientists make models showing the temperature increasing but it doesn't happen, the public gets skeptical. 

 

Models and theories need to be constantly modified to meet the facts.  On top of that, the media is not a friend, reporting only the most dire predictictions which typically fail. 

 

No, I'm not a denier.   To think humans can spew billions of tons of pollutants into the air, cut down the forests, and pave huge tracts of land without affecting the climate is beyond plausability.  However, making cut and dry "settled" statements of future changes ultimately is counter productive to changing the world's behavior.

[sokolow]

However, making cut and dry "settled" statements of future changes ultimately is counter productive to changing the world's behavior.

Well, maybe, but if we take your stance as a model for how deep structural social change is supposed to occur -- OK what happens next? How should we verify this.

Because there's a competing outlook that says, no, actually, the most effective approach at the macro level in terms of doing movement mobilization is to relentlessly attack your opponents with the aim of discrediting & marginalizing their opinions, undermine & encumber their organizational / financial bases of support, and to use every discursive outlet to continually reiterate whatever points constitute the rhetorical foundation of your preferred position. On the individual / personal level it may pay for persons to use kinder suasion but that's a situational exception.

Put bluntly it sounds like "applied propaganda studies" but actually, is an active research question in the allied social sciences as evidenced by the Cook et. al argument with the cultural cognition crew

[chrisf97212]

Well, maybe, but if we take your stance as a model for how deep structural social change is supposed to occur -- OK what happens next?

Because there's a competing outlook that says, no, actually, the most effective approach at the macro level in terms of doing movement mobilization is to relentlessly attack your opponents with the aim of discrediting & marginalizing their opinions, undermine & encumber their organizational / financial bases of support, and to use every discursive outlet to continually reiterate whatever points constitute the rhetorical foundation of your preferred position. On the individual / personal level it may pay to use suasion but that's a situational exception.

 

Maybe your right.  I'd like to think the public could understand statements like "Current emission levels have a 90% probability of producing a temperature increase of X%", but then I look who gets elected to National office and my faith in the public IQ goes down the toilet.

[sokolow]

Maybe your right. I'd like to think the public could understand statements like "Current emission levels have a 90% probability of producing a temperature increase of X%", but then I look who gets elected to National office and my faith in the public IQ goes down the toilet.

I don't think its people and their IQ so much as that having a diverse politics of engagement for ordinary persons takes a lot of time money effort and actual risk on the one hand and gives heartbreakingly little apparent result on the other ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[stadiumwave]

Having done the majority of my field work & studying in realm of paleoclimate, there is definitely more support for the more "variable" Holocene reconstructions, as opposed to the Mann et al crap that implies a lower climate sensitivity to radiative stimuli. The higher resolution proxies are naturally less prone contamination, as well.

Agree!! I do not even take Mann's reconstruction seriously at all. It stands alone all by itself....& I'll leave it at that.

[stadiumwave]

When I hear someone say the science is settled, I think its fair to reply ok, what happens next?  When NASA can shoot a rocket at Mars and 6 months later it lands on the red planet, the public believes NASA knows its stuff.   When scientists make models showing the temperature increasing but it doesn't happen, the public gets skeptical. 

 

Models and theories need to be constantly modified to meet the facts.  On top of that, the media is not a friend, reporting only the most dire predictictions which typically fail. 

 

No, I'm not a denier.   To think humans can spew billions of tons of pollutants into the air, cut down the forests, and pave huge tracts of land without affecting the climate is beyond plausability.  However, making cut and dry "settled" statements of future changes ultimately is counter productive to changing the world's behavior.

+1

Well said! I'm right with ya.

[Hambone]

???

Frankly the US could straight pay for rapid decarbonization through old school cold war deficit spending and a cold war tax structure and the result would be full employment and prosperity

That economic theory has been thoroughly disproven.

[sokolow]

That economic theory has been thoroughly disproven.

I don't think that's quite right.

[sokolow]

Maybe that's a topic for banter thread? Idk.

[Hambone]

Maybe that's a topic for banter thread? Idk.

My point is that Keynesian Economics don't work on a massive, lengthy scale. Stimulus is meant to be short duration to stimulate sufficient growth to repay the stimulus within a relatively short window. We've seen the national debt expand from 6 trillion to 17 trillion over the past 6 years without nearly sufficient economic growth to justify even a small percentage of the debt. This also doesn't includes the trillions in stimulus generated by the fed through reduced rates and QE. Right now rates are at 1/3 "average" and the carry on our debt is $900 billion/annually. When rates return to "average" existing debt carry will normalize at $2.5 billion+/year. The US only collects $3 trillion in tax revenue annually. Do the math.

[sokolow]

My point is that Keynesian Economics don't work on a massive, lengthy scale. Stimulus is meant to be short duration to stimulate sufficient growth to repay the stimulus within a relatively short window. We've seen the national debt expand from 6 trillion to 17 trillion over the past 6 years without nearly sufficient economic growth to justify even a small percentage of the debt. This also doesn't includes the trillions in stimulus generated by the fed through reduced rates and QE. Right now rates are at 1/3 "average" and the carry on our debt is $900 billion/annually. When rates return to "average" existing debt carry will normalize at $2.5 billion+/year. The US only collects $3 trillion in tax revenue annually. Do the math.

Weird. If only people had thought about the implications of revenue shortfalls and debt service back in the late 90s and early oughts, or argued in 2008-9 that perhaps the stimulus package was probably undersized in view of the expected effects.

[JBG]

Fire away. I'd like a LOT of people to respond here and fully set forth their views so that we can see who's biased in the climate forum and what their political views are. I would especially appreciate a lot of red-tagged climate skeptics to share their views here, as I suspect that one's opinion on the role of government in regard to climate "management" makes a huge difference in how one analyzes the otherwise-mixed CAGW debate.

If there indeed is AGW, cutting emissions in a minor way in the U.S. won't make much of a difference. China and India are not subject to Kyoto so any cuts here will be made up there, as will the employment. If there is no AGW it's all an exercise anyway.

I suspect that most proponents of these schemes are believers in "one world." Those beliefs are nice, but have the reality of the song "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream" that we used to sing in Sunday School at my Temple when I was 10. Link to lyrics:

 

Last night I had the strangest dream

I ever dreamed before

I dreamed the world had all agreed

To put an end to war

I dreamed I saw a mighty room

The room was filled with men

And the paper they were signing said

They'd never fight again

And when the papers all were signed

And a million copies made

They all joined hands end bowed their heeds

And grateful prayers were prayed

And the people in the streets below

Were dancing round and round

And guns and swords and uniforms

Were scattered on the ground

Last night I had the strangest dream

I ever dreamed before

I dreamed the world had all agreed

To put an end to war