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

[StudentOfClimatology]

How is that usage consistent with good English?

Who cares, this is a science forum, not an English class. I understood what he meant, and so did you.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Definition of "marred" (link) :

 

 

 

1.  The green house effect is a fact?  This has been physically observed and proven.

 

2.  His statement that ENSO/PDO and solar have

 

 

 

verb

past tense: marred; past participle: marred

impair the appearance of;

 

 

Is 100% fact.  Are you going to tell us you don't believe the Green house effect is real, you don't believe or understand the PDO cycles and it's direct relationship to global temperatures, and you don't believe or understand why the longest and deepest solar min in 90-100 years has also played a smaller role in off-setting AGW slightly.

 

 

Why do you think out of about 150-160 years of observation global ssta have destroyed previously held records that were only attained thru a strong NINO and a Super NIno with a negative ONI average so far this year?

 

Not only is the surface of the oceans that warm.  the sub-surface is at record warmth.  Land ice melt is at record levels snow cover loss has been running at record levels, global surface temps are running at record levels so far this year again running with years with a Super Nino and Strong nino.  While we have a -.224 ONI.  and a -.320 roughly if we count the last two months of 2013 because of lag.

 

Where is this heat coming from?  Why are sea levels continuing to rise?  Where is the cooling? 

 

 

I took the liberty of drawing in a grayish line on where GISS is likely to finish.  Grey bars mean neutral ENSO.  2013 was the warmest year on record for a neutral ENSO year.  Yes it shows 2002 as gray but 2002 had a NINO for over half the year. 

 

2013 had an average ONI on the year of -0.332.  2014 like I said up above has averaged -0.224 so far.  And it's rivaling 2010 right now.  And 2010 started with a powerful NINO.  That was only 4 years ago and now we are matching and passing what could only be done with a Strong or Super nino coming off 17 months in a row with a -ONI.

 

 

So how is the Earth warming like this if this is all a hoax? 

 

 

 

[nflwxman]

I would bet my house on the hunch that we will NEVER ride above the model mean.

I'd take that bet, but you live near Detroit.  

[StudentOfClimatology]

This is classic. You know the deniers are doing well arguing when...

Yep. Classic deflection technique

[JBG]

1.  The green house effect is a fact?  This has been physically observed and proven.

 

2.  His statement that ENSO/PDO and solar have

 

 

 

 

Is 100% fact.  Are you going to tell us you don't believe the Green house effect is real, you don't believe or understand the PDO cycles and it's direct relationship to global temperatres, and you don't believe or understand why the longest and deepest solar min in 90-100 years has also played a smaller role in off-setting AGW

"Affected" would be a neutral term. "Marred"implies your conclusion.

[bluewave]

Thanks. That looks right.  I will assume the mean is about right in the middle of all those individual models.

 

Actually, Bluewave..what dataset is that?  It shows 1998 warmer than 2005 and 2010.  It also shows 2005 as warmer than 2010.  Is that a satellite dataset?

 

Clearly the choice of dataset makes a huge difference.  If you use the Hadcrut4 Cowtan and Way dataset, it looks like a much better storm for the climate models.

 

Cowan and Way isn't much different.

 

Overall these updates are fairly minor. 

 

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updates-to-comparison-of-cmip5-models-observations/#more-1827

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and

 

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).

[StudentOfClimatology]

"Affected" would be a neutral term. "Marred"implies your conclusion.

Seriously, can you please stop this?

[nflwxman]

Cowan and Way isn't much different.

Which dataset is in the graph though?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Which dataset is in the graph though?

I think it's a full aggregate...1998 still holds the record in the lower troposphere, while it's closer on the surface datasets.

[ORH_wxman]

Which dataset is in the graph though?

 

 

Its all 4 datasets.

 

 

The papers I linked used Hadcrut4 as the surface dataset.

[Isotherm]

The brutal reality, regardless of what dataset we're examining, is that we've been running below most of the GCM's in terms of global temperatures. Now, whether that will continue over the coming decade is certainly debatable, but the fact that the warming has been overestimated suggests that there's likely flaw(s) in the models' interpretation of climate sensitivity, namely that the Earth is less sensitive to Co2 radiative forcing than anticipated.

[StudentOfClimatology]

This is it:

Screen shot 2014-09-15 at 4.28.38 PM.png

Edit: Yes, it's an aggregate of 4 datasets. Always smarter to use multiple sources.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Its all 4 datasets.

The papers I linked used Hadcrut4 as the surface dataset.

Which one are they leaving out? There are 5 mainstream datasets..

[nflwxman]

Which one are they leaving out? There are 5 mainstream datasets..

I'd guess based on the fact that 1998 looks so warm they are using RSS and UAH while leaving out NCDC.

 

Thanks Bluewave for the report.   

[Kory]

I don't really have an opinion on CAGW, but I know that Dr. Roy Spencer has a view on climate change that isn't the mainstream, what do y'all think of his argument?  

[The_Global_Warmer]

The brutal reality, regardless of what dataset we're examining, is that we've been running below most of the GCM's in terms of global temperatures. Now, whether that will continue over the coming decade is certainly debatable, but the fact that the warming has been overestimated suggests that there's likely flaw(s) in the models' interpretation of climate sensitivity, namely that the Earth is less sensitive to Co2 radiative forcing than anticipated.

 

Or maybe they didn't predict the possible start to a "major solar min"  Or tanking into a negative PDO at the same time reaching near record levels of -PDO that go back 150 years.

 

The literature estimates the PDO cycle causes 0.2C of warming or cooling or slightly more when a cycle changes.

 

The literature estimates when the solar cycle drops like it has the last decade upwards of 0.1C of cooling can be expected possibly slightly more.

 

This has all happened at the exact same time.

 

And all there is to show for it "cooling wise" was a strong nina driven 2008.  A record setting Nino driven 2010.  Something like the 8th and 9th warmest years on record for 2011 and 2012(nina years).  More so 2011.

 

Then like folks have said a million times the 4th warmest year on UAH, 6th warmest on GISS in 2013 with a yearly ONI of -.332C.

 

And now about 8-9 years into this PDO plunge and solar tanking 2014 again with a -0.224 ONI so far this year is pacing to break the surface data sets and come in 4th on UAH probably close to 2005 which is 3rd and came off a Nino and 3 years+ of ninos and positive neutral ENSO right before the PDO and solar tanked.

 

So it makes the modeling bad.  That is irrelevant and worthless until they can improve them.  Sometimes a bit of practical application can go a long way.  Co2 climate sensitivity has been exhaustively studied, observed physically and replicated in a lab.

 

It's real and they know it's effects on the atmosphere.  I am pretty sure some guy from the late 1800s wrote  paper about the industrial revolution eventually causing global warming.

 

Acting like the science is that bunk is ludicrous.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Took me awhile, but looking closely it seems to have 2005 and 2010 a tad warmer than 1998. So maybe they're leaving out RSS? I'm too lazy to look it up, haha.

[ORH_wxman]

Which one are they leaving out? There are 5 mainstream datasets..

 

 

Probably NCDC...that dataset is the least mainstream of those 5.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Probably NCDC...that dataset is the least mainstream of those 5.

Interesting, thanks. I've always liked NCDC, personally.

[Cygnus X-1]

Thanks to those who have responded , and no, I'm NOT trolling. As I previously mentioned, I am facinated by science and meteorology. Agian, all the common models I see being used for forcacting weather(NAM, EURO, and the rest) all rely on data, REAL data, and as they do their thing looking foward, they become fantasies merely days out. Furthermore, they are not that accurate even with data to work with.

 

So, in my mind I cannot understand how any climate model, looking into the future, can be accurate at all, in the chaotic in natue climate without out DATA. Plain and simple, it seems completely illogical....to me. 

[ORH_wxman]

Interesting, thanks. I've always liked NCDC, personally.

 

I liked it when they had satellite SST data, but they canned it and now have pretty bad coverage where partial sea ice is and the southern ocean. Its not too dissimilar to GISS now except that GISS does the land-cringing over the ice. NCDC doesn't infill it.

 

All the datasets have their issues to some extent. I guess thats why taking an average is sometimes a popular thing to do...though over a period of a couple decades, they all agree with eachother fairly closely.

[sokolow]

Thanks to those who have responded , and no, I'm NOT trolling. As I previously mentioned, I am facinated by science and meteorology. Agian, all the common models I see being used for forcacting weather(NAM, EURO, and the rest) all rely on data, REAL data, and as they do their thing looking foward, they become fantasies merely days out. Furthermore, they are not that accurate even with data to work with.

 

So, in my mind I cannot understand how any climate model, looking into the future, can be accurate at all, in the chaotic in natue climate without out DATA. Plain and simple, it seems completely illogical....to me.

I don't think that's quite right

[Cygnus X-1]

I don't think that's quite right

 

Well, I really wouldn't mind a disscussion about that....I'm here to learn, not to shout down climate science....

[Cygnus X-1]

So, what's not right?

[sokolow]

Where would you start, if you treated the question you originally asked as a research problem?

[Cygnus X-1]

Where would you start?

 

 

I already stated my opinions, start from there.

[Cygnus X-1]

Where would you start, if you treated the question you originally asked as a research problem?

 

Ha~ha, Professor. I'm asking questions as an observer of the world around me; in this world I see no evidence of data from the future, so I'll start there.

[Cygnus X-1]

I live on Long Island, NY, USA. This island is a direct result of glacial reach into North America, and retreat.

 

The north shore cliffs of sand reflect the ice that created them; as well the glacial erratic boulders that litter the shoreline, all from far north mountians

 

Of course, it was 20,000 years ago, but what was the catalist to...

 

1. Cause ice ages?

 

2. MELT them?

 

http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_bennington/121notes/pdfs/Glacial_features_LI.pdf

 

Is the rise in CO2 a cause of warming, or a resut?

 

There's too many variables, and the bias of time~scale, to narrow the causes of climate changes, and our opinions of it, imo.

[FloridaJohn]

Ha~ha, Professor. I'm asking questions as an observer of the world around me; in this world I see no evidence of data from the future, so I'll start there.

If you were to throw a ball of a known weight at a known angle and a known velocity, could you predict (with a certain amount of accuracy) where the ball would land? Is that a prediction of the future?

[sokolow]

I live on Long Island, NY, USA. This island is a direct result of glacial reach into North America, and retreat.

The north shore cliffs of sand reflect the ice that created them; as well the glacial erratic boulders that litter the shoreline, all from far north mountians

Of course, it was 20,000 years ago, but what was the catalist to...

1. Cause ice ages?

2. MELT them?

http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_bennington/121notes/pdfs/Glacial_features_LI.pdf

Is the rise in CO2 a cause of warming, or a resut?

There's too many variables, and the bias of time~scale, to narrow the causes of climate changes, and our opinions of it, imo.

WEird.All is shifting sands, and decay. As it was in the days of Noah,