2016 Global Temperatures

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're arguing with someone who believes that the surface temperature datasets are being maliciously altered to show more warming. I wouldn't waste my breath.

That is delussional.

And sad since you are a smart guy.

I mean you are saying you believe somewhere between 7-15 independent datasets are being manipulated.

You also inherently believe the weather models are being manipulated since their ssts would have to be manipulated to change what the surface sets show.

[ORH_wxman]

You also inherently believe the weather models are being manipulated since their ssts would have to be manipulated to change what the surface sets show.

 

 

False.

 

Those who claim sfc data manipulation are making the claim as post hoc adjustments due to differences in measuring techniques and spatial changes over time. The temperatures fed into models are not adjusted GHCN data...only QC'd sfc/raob obs and satellite data. For SST, they'd use satellite and QC'd surface readings from buoys.

 

A model doesn't get an adjusted surface temp from some airport because the previous station was downtown. The model gets the temp as is, because that is what the weather is in that spot. It also doesn't get an adjusted surface temp because some thermometer back in 1928 was biased warm...or an adjusted SST because a bucket was used in 1921.

[HailMan06]

Scientists involved with the Berkeley Earth Study conclude that surface datasets have no statistically significant errors in their results:

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

RSS Scientist Carl Mears on the accuracy of Satellite vs. surface data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0

Preliminary Paper on the latest version of RSS:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

We have shown that the long-term changes in MSU/AMSU derived atmospheric temperatures depend strongly on the details of the adjustments applied to account for changing measurement time. We showed that diurnal adjustments based on general circulation model output are not sufficiently accurate to remove the effects of measurement time drift.

-----------

The resulting dataset shows more warming than the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.

An explanation on how GISS temperature data is compiled:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf

In this section GISS scientists touch on concerns about urban placement of instruments:

We present evidence here that the urban warming has little effect on our standard global temperature analysis. However, in the Appendix we carry out an even more rigorous test. We show there that there are a sufficient number of stations located in "pitch black" regions, i.e., regions with brightness below the satellite's detectability limit (~1 µW/m2 /sr/µm), to allow global analysis with only the stations in pitch black regions defining long-term trends. The effect of this more stringent definition of rural areas on analyzed global temperature change is immeasurably small (<0.01°C per century). The finding of a negligible effect in this test (using only stations in pitch black areas) also addresses, to a substantial degree, the question of whether 7 movement of weather stations to airports has an important effect on analyzed global temperature change. The pitch black requirement eliminates not only urban and peri-urban stations but also three-quarters of the stations in the more than 500 GHCN records that are identified as airports in the station name. (The fact that one-quarter of the airports are pitch black suggests that they are in extreme rural areas and are shut down during the night.)

It is true that many urban sites must be avoided when collecting surface temperature and for modeling (as explained in the Parker et al, 2010):

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/hale/ENVS5200/Parker%20--%20Predicting%20Weather%20and%20Climate.pdf

However this study by Po-Chedley, et al. 2014 explains MSU/AMSU's uncertainties:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

Much of the error is corrected by making TMT (mid-tropospheric) adjustments and agree more with radiosonde measurements (as described in the next paper):

This study demonstrates the success of an observationally based approach to removing diurnal drift biases from the MSU/AMSU TMT record. The approach utilizes information from intersatellite differences and differences between ascending and descending nodes of individual satellites. As satellites drift through the diurnal cycle, we can compare observations at various LECTs and construct a common diurnal cycle correction for MSU and AMSU that explains differences in the TMT measurement for each satellite and node. This approach, compared to a diurnal drift bias correction derived from a climate model, has improved error characteristics, though tropical trend values utilizing the observationally based diurnal correction are very similar to trend values utilizing a GCM correction, with differences smaller than 0.02 K decade^-1.

Radiosonde Data:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf

Here they find that the warming profile of the troposphere in the tropics is in agreement with the moist adiabatic rate, confirming what one would expect using climate models:

The warming patterns shown in the revised dataset are similar to those shown in the original study except that expected patterns now appear somewhat more clearly. These include a near-moist-adiabatic profile of tropical warming with a peak warming rate of 0.25–0.3 K/decade near 300 hPa since either 1959 or 1979. This is interesting given that (a) many studies have reported less-than-expected tropospheric warming, and ( there has been a slowing of ocean surface warming in the last 15 years in the tropics. We support the findings of other recent studies (Po-Chedley et al 2015) that reports of weak tropospheric warming have likely been due to flaws in calibration and other problems and that warming patterns have proceeded in the way expected from models. Moreover our data does not show any slowdown of tropical atmospheric warming since 1998/99, an interesting finding that deserves further scrutiny using other datasets.

They also explain that changes in upper tropospheric wind from expanding Hadley cell circulation is consistent with a warming climate:

Results show acceleration of the Austral polar jet by up to 2.0 m s−1 though trends this far south should be treated with caution due to the small number of stations. Both subtropical jets have accelerated by ∼1 m s−1 and have lifted and shifted poleward, particularly the Northern jet. The equatorial middle and upper troposphere shows a shift toward more easterly winds, including at the equatorial flanks of both subtropical jets consistent with a poleward shift. The implied poleward expansion of the tropics is of order one or two degrees latitude in either hemisphere over the 33 year period, roughly consistent with estimates based on other types of data (Lucas et al 2014). Near the surface the only significant signal seen is a strengthening (with no evident shift) of the westerlies near 50S, in agreement with the reanalysis-based findings of Swart and Fyfe (2012), though sampling at these latitudes is poor.

If I missed something or left something unanswered feel free to let me know and I'll hopefully be able to answer it.

[bluewave]

+.23C /decade for us living in the Northern Hemisphere since 1970.

 

[Isotherm]

My apologies I try not to attack others but making the assertion that scientists are manipulating data for their own person reasons is completely false.

 

I have read the papers and comments from one of the RSS scientists themselves. If I have time and the literature isn't pay-walled I'll post the studies that support the surface temperature datasets.

 

Just to clarify: I believe the Hadcrut dataset - though certainly not without flaw - is superior to GISS and NCDC surface datasets. Additionally, I do not think data is being manipulated for personal reasons, but rather, a more all-encompassing agenda driven from the top down. Data manipulation due to ulterior motives is not an outlandish idea and it occurs in other fields as well (very significantly in the medical realm, but that is off-topic).

[ORH_wxman]

Just to clarify: I believe the Hadcrut dataset - though certainly not without flaw - is superior to GISS and NCDC surface datasets. Additionally, I do not think data is being manipulated for personal reasons, but rather, a more all-encompassing agenda driven from the top down. Data manipulation due to ulterior motives is not an outlandish idea and it occurs in other fields as well (very significantly in the medical realm, but that is off-topic).

 

HadSST3 vs ERSSTv4 is a legit debate.

 

I'm still waiting for a reconciliation of why ERSSTv4 handled the buoy/ship difference far more robustly than hadsst3 did. Hadley team hasn't really weighed in on the issue since ERSST was published last year.

 

The two datasets don't make a big difference at all over the entire period...they are almost exactly the same trend since 1880...but ERSST is far warmer post-2000 than hadsst3 due to the big ship/buoy adjustment.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, as we discussed in that thread, one should see a fairly quick response in the rate of warming.

 

However, it is your opinion (and apparently, most others here), that we haven't seen a change in the rate.

 

I have already posted scientific research and could post countless other studies demonstrating that the rate of warming has decreased over the past 15 years.

 

Even if the rate has reduced, which there is not strong evidence for, that means that unless there is a further drop in solar activity, the higher rate of warming will shortly resume as the burner (AGW) continues to be turned up but the sun stays right where it's at. In fact, even to just sustain a somewhat reduced rate of warming solar activity would have to continue to fall eternally just to balance the continual increasing CO2 forcing. 

 

Again going with the pot analogy.

 

What the earth, on AGW, is really like is a huge 100F pot of water that is warming because it is on a burner set to take the pot to 110F (current CO2 levels). The recent drop in solar activity was like turning that burner down slightly (only enough forcing to take the pot to 105F now). The rate of warming was reduced but the burner was not turned down enough to stop the warming. Now, if CO2 emissions stopped, we'd still continue warming but eventually stop when we got to 105F. 

 

However, if CO2 concentration increases further, the burner is being turned right back up again.

 

Now, if solar forcing had as big an impact on the energy flow as deniers claim, then it would be like our above example, but the burner would be turned down low enough to only hold the pot at 95F and cooling would commence immediately. 

 

Despite solar activity dropping, cooling did not commence. Therefore the second hypothesis is invalidated. The drop in solar activity was, at most, enough to temporarily reduce the rate of warming not make the rate negative.

[HailMan06]

That is delussional.

And sad since you are a smart guy.

I mean you are saying you believe somewhere between 7-15 independent datasets are being manipulated.

You also inherently believe the weather models are being manipulated since their ssts would have to be manipulated to change what the surface sets show.

Are you replying to the right person?

[bluewave]

HadSST3 vs ERSSTv4 is a legit debate.

 

I'm still waiting for a reconciliation of why ERSSTv4 handled the buoy/ship difference far more robustly than hadsst3 did. Hadley team hasn't really weighed in on the issue since ERSST was published last year.

 

The two datasets don't make a big difference at all over the entire period...they are almost exactly the same trend since 1880...but ERSST is far warmer post-2000 than hadsst3 due to the big ship/buoy adjustment.

 

The only Hadley response that I could find is that it falls within their own uncertainty range.

 

...Overall this study demonstrates the importance of further work in narrowing down uncertainties in global temperature datasets and in better understanding climate variability. These are areas the Met Office has been working on for a number of years. The numbers in this study are within the uncertainty ranges calculated in our own global temperature dataset and we’re in the midst of a long-term project to further improve and narrow down our understanding of uncertainties. Understanding variability in the rate of global average surface warming is an ongoing and active research topic. - Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre

[ORH_wxman]

The only Hadley response that I could find is that it falls within their own uncertainty range.

 

...Overall this study demonstrates the importance of further work in narrowing down uncertainties in global temperature datasets and in better understanding climate variability. These are areas the Met Office has been working on for a number of years. The numbers in this study are within the uncertainty ranges calculated in our own global temperature dataset and we’re in the midst of a long-term project to further improve and narrow down our understanding of uncertainties. Understanding variability in the rate of global average surface warming is an ongoing and active research topic. - Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre

 

 

Right, which isn't saying much. The uncertainties are large relatively speaking in the context of comparing the two datasets...and that's only structural uncertainties. The main component of the ERSSTv4 revision is from the ships to buoys adjustment which was +0.12C with an error bar of plus or minus 1.7C...so this important obs revision has a monstrous error bar.

[chubbs]

Just to clarify: I believe the Hadcrut dataset - though certainly not without flaw - is superior to GISS and NCDC surface datasets. Additionally, I do not think data is being manipulated for personal reasons, but rather, a more all-encompassing agenda driven from the top down. Data manipulation due to ulterior motives is not an outlandish idea and it occurs in other fields as well (very significantly in the medical realm, but that is off-topic).

It is an outlandish idea - without a shred of evidence.

[HailMan06]

It is an outlandish idea - without a shred of evidence.

The first two links I posted on my cited post go to the BEST study which validates the surface temperature data. I'm still waiting for his response.

[chubbs]

NOAA was 1.22 in March just edging Feb by 0.01 for the warmest month ever. The last nine months are all warmer than any month before 2015.

[Isotherm]

Scientists involved with the Berkeley Earth Study conclude that surface datasets have no statistically significant errors in their results:

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

RSS Scientist Carl Mears on the accuracy of Satellite vs. surface data:

Preliminary Paper on the latest version of RSS:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

An explanation on how GISS temperature data is compiled:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0803.pdf

In this section GISS scientists touch on concerns about urban placement of instruments:

It is true that many urban sites must be avoided when collecting surface temperature and for modeling (as explained in the Parker et al, 2010):

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/hale/ENVS5200/Parker%20--%20Predicting%20Weather%20and%20Climate.pdf

However this study by Po-Chedley, et al. 2014 explains MSU/AMSU's uncertainties:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

Much of the error is corrected by making TMT (mid-tropospheric) adjustments and agree more with radiosonde measurements (as described in the next paper):

Radiosonde Data:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf

Here they find that the warming profile of the troposphere in the tropics is in agreement with the moist adiabatic rate, confirming what one would expect using climate models:

They also explain that changes in upper tropospheric wind from expanding Hadley cell circulation is consistent with a warming climate:

If I missed something or left something unanswered feel free to let me know and I'll hopefully be able to answer it.

 

 

HadSST3 vs ERSSTv4 is a legit debate.

 

I'm still waiting for a reconciliation of why ERSSTv4 handled the buoy/ship difference far more robustly than hadsst3 did. Hadley team hasn't really weighed in on the issue since ERSST was published last year.

 

The two datasets don't make a big difference at all over the entire period...they are almost exactly the same trend since 1880...but ERSST is far warmer post-2000 than hadsst3 due to the big ship/buoy adjustment.

 

 

Yes - the transition from predominately ship measurements to buoy measurements, and subsequently, NOAA's usage of night maritime air temperature measured from ship intakes, further complicated matters.

 

In response to hailman's post as well, the following is a rebuttal to that video from Dr. Christy:

 

"NOAA used a curious reference variable to calibrate the water temperatures measured from ship intakes  – the Night Marine Air Temperature (NMAT).  This is curious because there are considerable adjustments required for the NMATs themselves, i.e. corrections for height of ship deck, etc.  In any case, from this, the buoy data were then adjusted to match the ship data.  It appears, then, that the foundational adjustment process depends on NMATs to adjust the ship data to then adjust the buoy data.  The final product from NOAA mixes all of these together, and because the geographic representation of the different systems changed dramatically (as noted, from approximately 10% buoys and 90% ships in 1980 to 90% buoys and 10% ships today – Huang et al. 2015), an adjustment applied to the buoys will automatically influence the trend."

 

Quote regarding the video:

 

"The video of interest was promoted by a climate change pressure group (Yale Climate Connections, http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/01/over-reliance-on-satellitedata-alone-criticized/) in which well-known scientists make claims that are mostly meaningless or completely wrong relative to the evidence in Fig. 1."

 

Direct link to the testimony:

 

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

 

 

He provides a discussion of the satellite versus surface dataset debate, and underscores a number of points, including:

 

 

"First, the claim is made the satellites do not measure temperature.  In reality, the sensors on satellites measure temperature by emitted radiation - the same method that a physician uses to measure your body temperature to high precision using an ear probe.  Atmospheric oxygen emits microwaves, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen, and thus the atmosphere. That the satellites measure temperature is evident by the following chart which compares our UAH satellite data with temperatures calculated from balloon thermistors.  As an aside, most surface temperature measurements are indirect, using electronic resistance."

 

 

On surface datasets:

 

"There are many other factors that render surface temperature datasets to be of low effectiveness for the detection of enhanced greenhouse warming, (a) lack of systematic geographical coverage in time, (unsystematic measuring methods and instrumentation 7 J.R. Christy 2 Feb 2016   House Committee on    Science, Space and Technology 

in time and space, © the point measurement represents at best a tiny, local area and (d) is easily impacted by slight changes in the surroundings, which can occur for example when a station moves.  There have been huge efforts to try and adjust the raw surface data to give a time series that would represent that of a pristine environment, and I have led or been a part in some of these"

 

 

The satellite data can be independently verified by balloon temperature data, which aids in corroborating the former's accuracy. He presents a 0.98 correlation between satellite and balloon data. 

 

 

Another paper concerning the potential issues with the NOAA ERSST dataset, and the HADSST3 being the likely "gold standard" for global ocean surface temperatures as per Dr. Curry.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013RG000434/abstract

 

 

A paper discussing the slow-down over the past 15 years:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261015748_Climate_science_Uncertain_temperature_trend

 

 

The methods utilized for the new NOAA ERSSTv4 dataset seem problematic to me. The the first link, one can see that the Hadley observation are more consistent with UAH air temperatures (near sea surface) than NOAA sea sfc.

 

[Isotherm]

Even if the rate has reduced, which there is not strong evidence for, that means that unless there is a further drop in solar activity, the higher rate of warming will shortly resume as the burner (AGW) continues to be turned up but the sun stays right where it's at. In fact, even to just sustain a somewhat reduced rate of warming solar activity would have to continue to fall eternally just to balance the continual increasing CO2 forcing. 

 

Again going with the pot analogy.

 

What the earth, on AGW, is really like is a huge 100F pot of water that is warming because it is on a burner set to take the pot to 110F (current CO2 levels). The recent drop in solar activity was like turning that burner down slightly (only enough forcing to take the pot to 105F now). The rate of warming was reduced but the burner was not turned down enough to stop the warming. Now, if CO2 emissions stopped, we'd still continue warming but eventually stop when we got to 105F. 

 

However, if CO2 concentration increases further, the burner is being turned right back up again.

 

Now, if solar forcing had as big an impact on the energy flow as deniers claim, then it would be like our above example, but the burner would be turned down low enough to only hold the pot at 95F and cooling would commence immediately. 

 

Despite solar activity dropping, cooling did not commence. Therefore the second hypothesis is invalidated. The drop in solar activity was, at most, enough to temporarily reduce the rate of warming not make the rate negative.

 

 

 

The overall premise of your analogy is correct in terms of the methodology by which solar forcing should influence the climate, but I think it’s too simplistic. Further, you made some assumptions regarding relative attribution, which I don’t believe we know conclusively as of yet, and the quantification of relative solar forcing would be pure speculation at this point. I realize it’s merely an analogy, but here’s my primary issue with those statements. How do you know that the burner has been decreased to such an extent that a negative rate of cooling should commence? You are assuming that the system should be fully equilibrated based upon current solar forcing, and thus the amount of energy lost should now exceed the amount of energy gained. In my opinion, we are still gaining more energy than is being lost. We had a period of very low solar forcing 2006-2012, but this following several successive cycles of strong forcing (including cycle 23 in the early 2000s). I don’t believe that we’ve seen sufficient protracted low solar forcing such that the rate would become negative yet (assuming significant solar contribution). Therefore, I don’t think the solar attribution hypothesis can be ruled out at this stage of the game, as the burner hasn’t been turned down sufficiently low [and for a long enough duration] to induce equilibration as of yet. I do think – if solar forecasts are accurate – that we should probably see that occur within the upcoming decade, if solar forcing contributes significantly to climate.

[skierinvermont]

The overall premise of your analogy is correct in terms of the methodology by which solar forcing should influence the climate, but I think it’s too simplistic. Further, you made some assumptions regarding relative attribution, which I don’t believe we know conclusively as of yet, and the quantification of relative solar forcing would be pure speculation at this point. I realize it’s merely an analogy, but here’s my primary issue with those statements. How do you know that the burner has been decreased to such an extent that a negative rate of cooling should commence? You are assuming that the system should be fully equilibrated based upon current solar forcing, and thus the amount of energy lost should now exceed the amount of energy gained. In my opinion, we are still gaining more energy than is being lost. We had a period of very low solar forcing 2006-2012, but this following several successive cycles of strong forcing (including cycle 23 in the early 2000s). I don’t believe that we’ve seen sufficient protracted low solar forcing such that the rate would become negative yet (assuming significant solar contribution). Therefore, I don’t think the solar attribution hypothesis can be ruled out at this stage of the game, as the burner hasn’t been turned down low enough to induce equilibration as of yet. I do think – if solar forecasts are accurate – that we should probably see that occur within the upcoming decade, if solar forcing contributes significantly to climate.

 

 

You need to focus and think hard about this because you are not getting it and you need to. I don't know if you have some mental block, or you just don't want to get it or both. But for heavens sake, please try, because it really is not that complicated.

 

The instant solar activity decreased that was the burner being turned down. And by that I don't mean one of those electric burners that takes a minute or two to cool off itself even once the dial is turned down. I mean a gas burner that when you turn it down the amount of energy being added, and thus the net energy balance, changes instantly.

 

If low solar activity has not caused the net energy balance to go negative after 8 years of low solar activity, then there is zero chance that it will after any longer. In fact, if the energy balance didn't go negative in the first year, there was zero chance that it ever would, unless solar activity got any lower. 

 

Just like the pot. If you turn that gas burner down, and the 100F pot is still net gaining energy, then it will continue to do so until it reaches that warmer equilibrium (105F). Unless you turn the burner down even more. And there's no evidence that the sun will get turned down even more. It could stay at these levels, but probably not go much lower.

 

 

When people talk about the 'thermal inertia of the oceans' they mean that if you turn that gas burner down really low, the 100F pot is not instantly going to cool to 90F, but it would instantly and immediately begin cooling. The cooling will be most rapid at the beginning and then gradually slow as the pot approaches 90F.

 

That's thermal inertia. Thermal inertia does NOT mean that because the oceans are warming now, when we turn that burner down the pot will keep warming for a little while before starting to cool.

 

 

 

So unless you have some other magical lag where there is no observed effect on energy flows for 8 years, and then suddenly there is, then solar has had its full effect and the effect will diminish. Because 'thermal inertia of the oceans' can explain only a lag to reach final temperature NOT a lag for cooling to commence. Cooling should be most rapid at the beginning of turning the burner down if the burner is turned down significantly. Which it hasn't been.

[Isotherm]

You need to focus and think hard about this because you are not getting it and you need to. I don't know if you have some mental block, or you just don't want to get it or both. But for heavens sake, please try, because it really is not that complicated.

 

The instant solar activity decreased that was the burner being turned down. And by that I don't mean one of those electric burners that takes a minute or two to cool off itself even once the dial is turned down. I mean a gas burner that when you turn it down the amount of energy being added, and thus the net energy balance, changes instantly.

 

If low solar activity has not caused the net energy balance to go negative after 8 years of low solar activity, then there is zero chance that it will after any longer. In fact, if the energy balance didn't go negative in the first year, there was zero chance that it ever would, unless solar activity got any lower. 

 

Just like the pot. If you turn that gas burner down, and the 100F pot is still net gaining energy, then it will continue to do so until it reaches that warmer equilibrium (105F). Unless you turn the burner down even more. And there's no evidence that the sun will get turned down even more. It could stay at these levels, but probably not go much lower.

 

 

When people talk about the 'thermal inertia of the oceans' they mean that if you turn that gas burner down really low, the 100F pot is not instantly going to cool to 90F, but it would instantly and immediately begin cooling. The cooling will be most rapid at the beginning and then gradually slow as the pot approaches 90F.

 

That's thermal inertia. Thermal inertia does NOT mean that because the oceans are warming now, when we turn that burner down the pot will keep warming for a little while before starting to cool.

 

 

 

So unless you have some other magical lag where there is no observed effect on energy flows for 8 years, and then suddenly there is, then solar has had its full effect and the effect will diminish. Because 'thermal inertia of the oceans' can explain only a lag to reach final temperature NOT a lag for cooling to commence. Cooling should be most rapid at the beginning of turning the burner down if the burner is turned down significantly. Which it hasn't been.

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but your points regarding the haste with which temperatures would respond following solar forcing variations don't seem consistent with what I've researched on the subject. The strongest relationship with solar activity and temperature has generally been shown to be 30-40 years subsequent to solar variations. In fact, if one plots the sunspot integral [accumulated departure from mean SSN] as per Dr. Svalgaard's numbers (2014), it parallels global temperatures (Hadcru) very closely over the past 60 years. It is also "interesting" that the global temperature peak of 1998 w/ the super El Nino occurred 35-40 years following the most robust solar activity around 1960, which demonstrates the 30-40 year peak correlation. See the following study:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268882338_Correlation_between_solar_activity_and_the_local_temperature_of_Antarctica_during_the_past_11000_years

 

If that's the case, that doesn't coincide with your point that we'd see the most robust cooling transpire almost immediately following the decrease of solar forcing.

 

Furthermore - just to clarify regarding the analogy. I think there are two likely significant "burners" here -- anthropogenic forcing and solar forcing. I'm not sure if you assumed that I believed solar attribution to climate was near 100%. I believe anthropogenic activity does contribute a significant percentage. So in that case, really what we've seen is the persistence of one burner on high, and another burner decreased somewhat over the past decade. The resultant should be a decrease in the rate of warming, but certainly not a commencement of negative rate (cooling). What we will see with much more clarity over the next 10-15 years is the relative attribution of solar vs. anthropogenic forcing revealed by the overall rate of warming (or reversal to cooling). But again, one burner analogy would assume that there's only one warming agent, which I do not think there is. Whether solar or anthropogenic is the "larger" of the two burners is still debatable in my opinion, though I tend to think the former.

[HailMan06]

I understand what you're saying, but your points regarding the haste with which temperatures would respond following solar forcing variations don't seem to jive with what I've researched on the subject. The strongest relationship with solar activity and temperature has generally been shown to be 30-40 years subsequent to solar variations. In fact, if one plots the sunspot integral [accumulated departure from mean SSN] as per Dr. Svalgaard's numbers (2014), it parallels global temperatures (Hadcru) very closely over the past 60 years. It is also "interesting" that the global temperature peak of 1998 w/ the super El Nino occurred 35-40 years following the most robust solar activity around 1960, which demonstrates the 30-40 year peak correlation. See the following study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268882338_Correlation_between_solar_activity_and_the_local_temperature_of_Antarctica_during_the_past_11000_years

If that's the case, that doesn't coincide with your point that we'd see the most robust cooling transpire almost immediately following the decrease of solar forcing.

Furthermore - just to clarify regarding the analogy. I think there are two likely significant "burners" here -- anthropogenic forcing and solar forcing. I'm not sure if you assumed that I believed solar attribution to climate was near 100%. I believe anthropogenic activity does contribute a significant percentage. So in that case, really what we've seen is the persistence of one burner on high, and another burner decreased somewhat over the past decade. The resultant should be a decrease in the rate of warming, but certainly not a commencement of negative rate (cooling). What we will see with much more clarity over the next 10-15 years is the relative attribution of solar vs. anthropogenic forcing revealed by the overall rate of warming (or reversal to cooling). But again, one burner analogy would assume that there's only one warming agent, which I do not think there is. Whether solar or anthropogenic is the "larger" of the two burners is still debatable in my opinion, though I tend to think the former.

Interesting paper, thanks. I haven't fully read the Zhao paper yet but seems to focus primarily on Vostok temperatures in Antarctica. The authors themselves are leery of the negative temperature-sunspot correlation. That is partly why they conclude that their results may not be reflective of global temps as a whole but need further research to answer that uncertainty. Hopefully there will be (or is) research on the correlation between solar activity and ocean heat content.

[Snow_Miser]

April is very warm on the WeatherBell CFSv2. There isn't much time to bring this number down, and dailies are spiking up to near +0.75 C once again.

 

So far for the month, we are at +0.56. With dailies spiking, that number should go up over the next few days or so. Would translate to a +1.11 to +1.26 anomaly for April right now on GISS. The warmest April on record by quite a bit. 

[skierinvermont]

I understand what you're saying, but your points regarding the haste with which temperatures would respond following solar forcing variations don't seem consistent with what I've researched on the subject. The strongest relationship with solar activity and temperature has generally been shown to be 30-40 years subsequent to solar variations. In fact, if one plots the sunspot integral [accumulated departure from mean SSN] as per Dr. Svalgaard's numbers (2014), it parallels global temperatures (Hadcru) very closely over the past 60 years. It is also "interesting" that the global temperature peak of 1998 w/ the super El Nino occurred 35-40 years following the most robust solar activity around 1960, which demonstrates the 30-40 year peak correlation. See the following study:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268882338_Correlation_between_solar_activity_and_the_local_temperature_of_Antarctica_during_the_past_11000_years

 

If that's the case, that doesn't coincide with your point that we'd see the most robust cooling transpire almost immediately following the decrease of solar forcing.

 

Furthermore - just to clarify regarding the analogy. I think there are two likely significant "burners" here -- anthropogenic forcing and solar forcing. I'm not sure if you assumed that I believed solar attribution to climate was near 100%. I believe anthropogenic activity does contribute a significant percentage. So in that case, really what we've seen is the persistence of one burner on high, and another burner decreased somewhat over the past decade. The resultant should be a decrease in the rate of warming, but certainly not a commencement of negative rate (cooling). What we will see with much more clarity over the next 10-15 years is the relative attribution of solar vs. anthropogenic forcing revealed by the overall rate of warming (or reversal to cooling). But again, one burner analogy would assume that there's only one warming agent, which I do not think there is. Whether solar or anthropogenic is the "larger" of the two burners is still debatable in my opinion, though I tend to think the former.

 

Again, you're still confusing temperature with temperature change. It's possible, if solar actually did have a large effect, that the peak effect would be delayed 40-60 years. Actually, it would be delayed 100s if not 1000s of years. But most of the peak effect could be realized in 40-60 years. 

 

However, it is physically impossible if solar does have an effect for the full force of cooling (or slowed warming) to not occur immediately. After initial peak cooling effect, the effect would diminish gradually until the peak temperature effect was achieved. 

 

Also, the paper you posted doesn't even come close to supporting your assertions.

 

Again you are engaged in magical thinking where solar forcing has little discernible effect on energy flows and then suddenly kicks in after 40 years. If solar has an effect on energy flows, the effect would be immediate. The temperature change might take some time, but the change in the rate of temperature change would be immediate.

[bluewave]

Right, which isn't saying much. The uncertainties are large relatively speaking in the context of comparing the two datasets...and that's only structural uncertainties. The main component of the ERSSTv4 revision is from the ships to buoys adjustment which was +0.12C with an error bar of plus or minus 1.7C...so this important obs revision has a monstrous error bar.

 

In any event, the more significant spread between the datasets was 1940-1970 rather than today.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

In any event, the more significant spread between the datasets was 1940-1970 rather than today.

Kevin Cowtan AGU14.png

Wow they are almost identical post 2000.

And either way. All reliable sst data sets have the crushing "pause busting" warmth.

[ORH_wxman]

Wow they are almost identical post 2000.

And either way. All reliable sst data sets have the crushing "pause busting" warmth.

 

The difference post-2000 is large enough in the trend that Hadsst3 has a definitive pause when looking at 2000-2014...ersst4 doesn't.

 

 

Obviously since last year, we've seen a big spike up so the trend is solidly positive on either dataset when we include post-2014.

 

 

Talking about small periods generally doesn't matter too much, but the way ERSST4 is calculated, the divergence is just going to increase because it makes this buoy adjustment for recent years that Hadsst3 doesn't....you'll notice how ERSST4 was colder in the mid/late 1990s than HadSST3, then it crossed paths and went warmer in the early 2000s and has diverged.

[Isotherm]

Again, you're still confusing temperature with temperature change. It's possible, if solar actually did have a large effect, that the peak effect would be delayed 40-60 years. Actually, it would be delayed 100s if not 1000s of years. But most of the peak effect could be realized in 40-60 years. 

 

However, it is physically impossible if solar does have an effect for the full force of cooling (or slowed warming) to not occur immediately. After initial peak cooling effect, the effect would diminish gradually until the peak temperature effect was achieved. 

 

Also, the paper you posted doesn't even come close to supporting your assertions.

 

Again you are engaged in magical thinking where solar forcing has little discernible effect on energy flows and then suddenly kicks in after 40 years. If solar has an effect on energy flows, the effect would be immediate. The temperature change might take some time, but the change in the rate of temperature change would be immediate.

 

 

 

 

I still disagree. Empirically speaking, I don't see support for the argument that the fastest rate of cooling occurs immediately subsequent to the decrease in solar forcing. I would challenge with the following.

 

 

This chart depicts the variation in SSN over the period 1750-2000s. Notice in particular the three consecutive weaker solar cycles in the 1880-1910 time frame. One can utilize this period as a potential comparison to the present in terms of overall magnitude.

 

 

 

 

The following chart courtesy of NOAA depicts global land + sea temperatures 1880-2000s. Examine the period 1880-1910, during which we experienced three consecutive weak solar cycles. Not only did the coolest absolute anomalies occur circa 1910, the most significant rate of decrease (cooling) transpired in the 1900-1910 period. This was during the third consecutive weak cycle. Global temperature anomalies decreased from around -0.2c in 1900 to near -0.4c in 1910. Why is that the case? Global temperatures began decreasing slowly following the reduced solar forcing, but the maximum rate of cooling actually occurred 20-30 years following the initial sharp decrease in solar forcing.

 

This lends credence to the notion that the maximum temperature response occurs at least a couple decades following, and the largest negative rate does not occur immediately/initially. The 1880-1910 is a valuable example period as we have relatively accurate global temperature anomalies and solar cycle data available. The cycles of 1880-1910 could be similar to the coming 30 years as well.

 

 

 

 

 

This HADCRUT reconstruction also nicely depicts the gradually increasing global temperatures 1850-1880 in response to the accumulated solar forcing (post 3-4 consecutive strong cycles), and subsequently the gradual decline thereafter, with the most robust decrease 1900-1910.

 

[chubbs]

Here is the climate response function for a step-change in forcing from a climate model. Impacts are large in the first 10-15 years as land and upper portion of the ocean quickly adjust. After 15 years only the deep ocean is still adjusting and the response is very slow taking thousands of years to fully equilibrate. Bottom-line if the response to a change in forcing is not noticeable within 15 years it isn't going to be noticed subsequently.

[Isotherm]

The onset of reduced solar forcing compared to the previous cycle began circa 2009-10, as every cycle features a minimum period, but cycle 24's peak values were about 50% of cycle 23's magnitude. The climate response function bolsters my point further that the 2016-2025 period is critically important insofar as aiding the discussion on relative attribution.

[nflwxman]

The onset of reduced solar forcing compared to the previous cycle began circa 2009-10, as every cycle features a minimum period, but cycle 24's peak values were about 50% of cycle 23's magnitude. The climate response function bolsters my point further that the 2016-2025 period is critically important insofar as aiding the discussion on relative attribution.

 

What's your projection for the 2016-2025 period global temp wise?

[skierinvermont]

I still disagree. Empirically speaking, I don't see support for the argument that the fastest rate of cooling occurs immediately subsequent to the decrease in solar forcing. I would challenge with the following.

 

 

This chart depicts the variation in SSN over the period 1750-2000s. Notice in particular the three consecutive weaker solar cycles in the 1880-1910 time frame. One can utilize this period as a potential comparison to the present in terms of overall magnitude.

 

 

 

 

The following chart courtesy of NOAA depicts global land + sea temperatures 1880-2000s. Examine the period 1880-1910, during which we experienced three consecutive weak solar cycles. Not only did the coolest absolute anomalies occur circa 1910, the most significant rate of decrease (cooling) transpired in the 1900-1910 period. This was during the third consecutive weak cycle. Global temperature anomalies decreased from around -0.2c in 1900 to near -0.4c in 1910. Why is that the case? Global temperatures began decreasing slowly following the reduced solar forcing, but the maximum rate of cooling actually occurred 20-30 years following the initial sharp decrease in solar forcing.

 

This lends credence to the notion that the maximum temperature response occurs at least a couple decades following, and the largest negative rate does not occur immediately/initially. The 1880-1910 is a valuable example period as we have relatively accurate global temperature anomalies and solar cycle data available. The cycles of 1880-1910 could be similar to the coming 30 years as well.

 

 

 

 

 

This HADCRUT reconstruction also nicely depicts the gradually increasing global temperatures 1850-1880 in response to the accumulated solar forcing (post 3-4 consecutive strong cycles), and subsequently the gradual decline thereafter, with the most robust decrease 1900-1910.

 

 

This argument is pathetic. First of all, empirical doesn't matter. It is physically impossible for the sun to have a significant impact on temperature but for no significant change in energy flow to occur following an abrupt decrease in solar activity. Theoretically you have to engage in magical thinking for that to occur. If the sun is a significant factor, it should alter energy flows immediately even if the full temperature response takes decades or centuries. Period.

 

But even looking empirically...

 

First, your empirical argument is garbage. Cooling seems to have commenced right around the same time solar activity decreased. You're splitting hairs to argue that cooling was most rapid 1900-1910. The precision of the data is not nearly close enough to assert that with any reasonable degree of confidence.

 

Second, even if we could say with confidence that the rate of cooling peaked that decade (which we absolutely cannot say), it could be due to dozens of other natural factors besides the sun.

 

Third, On the HadCRUT data I can't even see whether 1880-1890 or 1900-1910 had faster cooling. This comes back to point #1 about precision and accuracy of the data.

 

Fourth, it is clearly apparent that cooling commenced the same time as the weaker sun, which demonstrates my point not yours. 

 

Fifth, the whole argument is bull**** because you can't even attribute for certain any of the cooling during that period to the sun because it was also coincident with a lot of volcanic activity. It's also not a very long period and there could have been other natural oceanic oscillations over such a short timescale.

 

 

Sixth, given #5, #1, and #2 trying to compare the rate of cooling 1880-1890 vs 1900-1910 is a complete joke.

[chubbs]

Total solar irradiance (TSI) with an 11-year average to highlight long-term trends from the Open Mind blog. Recent Solar irradiance has been as low as any time in the past 150 years. So recent temperatures would be even warmer without the cooling effect of the sun. Note though that the decrease in solar irradiance is small compared to the current global 0.7 watt per square meter radiation imbalance from GHG (estimated from the recent rate of increase in ocean heat content).

[salbers]

Here is the climate response function for a step-change in forcing from a climate model. Impacts are large in the first 10-15 years as land and upper portion of the ocean quickly adjust. After 15 years only the deep ocean is still adjusting and the response is very slow taking thousands of years to fully equilibrate. Bottom-line if the response to a change in forcing is not noticeable within 15 years it isn't going to be noticed subsequently.

climateresponsefunction.jpg

 

I wonder how this function looks if we zoom into the left hand side. There should be some response on the time scales of hours to weeks I would think. Obviously there are diurnal cycles in temperature at least locally.