Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not interested in measurement error as I don't really care if the Pacific Ocean at 2000m is 32.15F or 32.17F, pretty irrelevant. The point is we're not warming as much as expected by IPCC, and many meteorologists are beginning to consider seriously the prospect of global cooling, or at the very least colder winters for the heavily populated mid-latitudes, due to solar and ocean cycle factors. We are entering a historic solar minimum with widespread implications as well as a hefty Niña/-PDO regime. We'll just have to see what happens. May the best man win.

The debate will only get worse this next decade I'm afraid. We will probably continue to see a flat line in global temps regardless of the "heat accumulated".

[skierinvermont]

I'm not interested in measurement error as I don't really care if the Pacific Ocean at 2000m is 32.15F or 32.17F, pretty irrelevant. The point is we're not warming as much as expected by IPCC, and many meteorologists are beginning to consider seriously the prospect of global cooling, or at the very least colder winters for the heavily populated mid-latitudes, due to solar and ocean cycle factors. We are entering a historic solar minimum with widespread implications as well as a hefty Niña/-PDO regime. We'll just have to see what happens. May the best man win.

You were the one suggesting throwing all the data sources under the bus because of measurement error. I was simply suggesting you read about the accuracy of said sources before doing so.

The earth is warming as much as the IPCC says. The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this particular decade, but internal fluctuations are perfectly expected. The trend is still within the confidence interval. The earth continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate and the long term trend at the surface remains strongly positive.

This is not a contest between the two of us. But your predictions of cooling by the 2020s and 2030s will fail. You do not have the expertise or evidence to make such a forecast.

[BethesdaWX]

You were the one suggesting throwing all the data sources under the bus because of measurement error. I was simply suggesting you read about the accuracy of said sources before doing so.

The earth is warming as much as the IPCC says. The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this particular decade, but internal fluctuations are perfectly expected. The trend is still within the confidence interval. The earth continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate and the long term trend at the surface remains strongly positive.

This is not a contest between the two of us. But your predictions of cooling by the 2020s and 2030s will fail. You do not have the expertise or evidence to make such a forecast.

Neither do You, Mr. Hypocrit. Most of us on this board know alot more than you do, obviously. Don't go into denial over it either...yet again. Don't Nitpick...read & respond in entirety.

Funny how the only data that show "immense warming" have no original data code available, and are all modeled. Refusing FOI requests for this "data", then "loosing" it gives it away.

- Is 1.5 decades with NO warming unprecedented? How about the MWP... as warm as today...............The RWP was twice as warm as the MWP! Both were solar, and with solar just as high today, we're COOLER.

-Watercraft were able to surface in the N Pole in the 1950's, ships in the 1940's & 1880's were able to travel farther up than we now can. The Warming began after the LIA, not the Industrial revolution.

-With the PPM increase of CO2 between the late 90's & today, we should have warmed. Yet, we cooled through the +AMO, +PDO, SC23/Max, 2 Super Ninos, & 75% El Nino dominance.......CO2 was a non factor.

What we've seen debunks these mass warming theories altogether.

[nzucker]

You were the one suggesting throwing all the data sources under the bus because of measurement error. I was simply suggesting you read about the accuracy of said sources before doing so.

The earth is warming as much as the IPCC says. The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this particular decade, but internal fluctuations are perfectly expected. The trend is still within the confidence interval. The earth continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate and the long term trend at the surface remains strongly positive.

This is not a contest between the two of us. But your predictions of cooling by the 2020s and 2030s will fail. You do not have the expertise or evidence to make such a forecast.

I was saying there seems to be an inconsistency in the data: satellites suggest the Earth is warming, but an analysis of 300m OHC, deep OHC, and surface temperatures shows that the warming has plateaued, especially since 2007. This is a problem. You can't keep talking about how the Earth is warming at an alarming rate if you don't know where the heat is, or if the heat may be so far below the ocean surface it is practically irrelevant in human terms. The IPCC didn't expect such strong internal fluctuations because we're about to fall outside the confidence interval with our current La Niña, and that's what they pegged as the expected variation due to chance that wouldn't falsify the models. If we're supposed to be warming .2C/decade but are only warming .1C per decade, that's well outside the interval I would reasonably expect.

[skierinvermont]

I was saying there seems to be an inconsistency in the data: satellites suggest the Earth is warming, but an analysis of 300m OHC, deep OHC, and surface temperatures shows that the warming has plateaued, especially since 2007. This is a problem. You can't keep talking about how the Earth is warming at an alarming rate if you don't know where the heat is, or if the heat may be so far below the ocean surface it is practically irrelevant in human terms. The IPCC didn't expect such strong internal fluctuations because we're about to fall outside the confidence interval with our current La Niña, and that's what they pegged as the expected variation due to chance that wouldn't falsify the models. If we're supposed to be warming .2C/decade but are only warming .1C per decade, that's well outside the interval I would reasonably expect.

And I pointed out (already) the analysis of OHC is not precise enough to analyze a two year trend. You need to look at longer term trends in order to get statistically significant measurements. The oceans accumulated an enormous amount of heat this decade, completely in line with expectations.

.1C/decade is not outside the confidence interval of .2C/decade unless it were to continue for 25-30 years at only .1C/decade.

Having a yearly value outside the confidence interval is not a problem. One expects a certain number of years to fall outside the 95% confidence interval. That is why it's called the 95% confidence interval not the 100% confidence interval. 95% of values fall within the range.. not 100%. Having one or two years fall below the confidence interval because of a La Nina doesn't prove or invalidate anything. It is expected.

I suggest you do some research on statistical significance and hypothesis testing.

[nzucker]

And I pointed out (already) the analysis of OHC is not precise enough to analyze a two year trend. You need to look at longer term trends in order to get statistically significant measurements. The oceans accumulated an enormous amount of heat this decade, completely in line with expectations.

.1C/decade is not outside the confidence interval of .2C/decade unless it were to continue for 25-30 years at only .1C/decade.

Having a yearly value outside the confidence interval is not a problem. One expects a certain number of years to fall outside the 95% confidence interval. That is why it's called the 95% confidence interval not the 100% confidence interval. 95% of values fall within the range.. not 100%. Having one or two years fall below the confidence interval because of a La Nina doesn't prove or invalidate anything. It is expected.

I suggest you do some research on statistical significance and hypothesis testing.

But what suggests we're not going to continue at .1C a year? We have better conditions for cooling than we did last decade which was +AMO, dominated by El Niño, with no volcanic activity and much higher solar? If we can't warm with favorable conditions for warming, how can we warm with unfavorable conditions like a Dalton Minimum and declining AMO?

5% is considered enough to invalidate a projection. If they fall outside 95% enough times, everyone is going to stop listening. And guess what? Most of the public isn't listening anyway because surface warming hasn't been impressive, the winters have become harsher in the world's populated zones, etc. So even if the IPCC technically isn't wrong, it has a whole lot of convincing to do that doesn't seem to be happening. Honestly dude, with the weather we've been having, how concerned can you be about global warming ruining us?

The projections were also made in 2007, 4 years ago. If the confidence interval is 95%, only 1 in 20 years should fall outside it. Certainly shouldn't be something that's happening immediately. And we're only more likely to fall outside it as the curve of warming goes up and we continue with the plateau.

[skierinvermont]

But what suggests we're not going to continue at .1C a year? We have better conditions for cooling than we did last decade which was +AMO, dominated by El Niño, with no volcanic activity and much higher solar? If we can't warm with favorable conditions for warming, how can we warm with unfavorable conditions like a Dalton Minimum and declining AMO?

5% is considered enough to invalidate a projection. If they fall outside 95% enough times, everyone is going to stop listening. And guess what? Most of the public isn't listening anyway because surface warming hasn't been impressive, the winters have become harsher in the world's populated zones, etc. So even if the IPCC technically isn't wrong, it has a whole lot of convincing to do that doesn't seem to be happening. Honestly dude, with the weather we've been having, how concerned can you be about global warming ruining us?

The projections were also made in 2007, 4 years ago. If the confidence interval is 95%, only 1 in 20 years should fall outside it. Certainly shouldn't be something that's happening immediately. And we're only more likely to fall outside it as the curve of warming goes up and we continue with the plateau.

The models incorporated in the model were largely created using data through 2002/2003ish so it's actually been 8 years.

What suggests we will not continue at .1C a year? How about the fact that solar activity is ramping up after the strong cooling effect it had on the last 5 years of this past decade. The PDO also had a strong cooling effect on the last decade which will be less of a factor next decade since most of the temperature response has already occurred (just as most of the response occurred shortly after the last flip to -PDO in the late 40s). The AMO is largely irrelevant to global temperatures because it is a tiny area and there is no detectable historical correlation.

The 2000s were not dominated by El Nino.. The ONI averaged to approximately zero. Get your facts straight.

It is too bad people are too stupid to understand how AGW will influence their lives even if they happen to be having a cold winter in their backyard. That is a travesty.

The primary threats are an increase in droughts and floods which cause infrastructure and agricultural damage, sea level rise, species extinction, and disruption of ecosystems upon which people are dependent for their livelihood.

The world continues to accumulate an astounding amount of heat and this heat will manifest itself at the surface over the next decade.

[nzucker]

The models incorporated in the model were largely created using data through 2002/2003ish so it's actually been 8 years.

What suggests we will not continue at .1C a year? How about the fact that solar activity is ramping up after the strong cooling effect it had on the last 5 years of this past decade. The PDO also had a strong cooling effect on the last decade which will be less of a factor next decade since most of the temperature response has already occurred (just as most of the response occurred shortly after the last flip to -PDO in the late 40s). The AMO is largely irrelevant to global temperatures because it is a tiny area and there is no detectable historical correlation.

The 2000s were not dominated by El Nino.. The ONI averaged to approximately zero. Get your facts straight.

It is too bad people are too stupid to understand how AGW will influence their lives even if they happen to be having a cold winter in their backyard. That is a travesty.

The primary threats are an increase in droughts and floods which cause infrastructure and agricultural damage, sea level rise, species extinction, and disruption of ecosystems upon which people are dependent for their livelihood.

The world continues to accumulate an astounding amount of heat and this heat will manifest itself at the surface over the next decade.

Solar activity is not ramping up....NASA may have to move the peak of Cycle 24 back again since there's been so little activity and we're still way below the curve suggested by NASA solar models, which have been rejected now as you see on the forum. You always have a bit of an increase following the bottom of the 11-year cycle, but that's not talking about the 100-year cycle which is much more important in determining global temperatures than the small variations associated with TSI. We're probably entering the beginning of a 30-50 year historical minimum like the Dalton or Maunder, and most of the coldest weather observed globally in those minimums actually occurred after they were over. Of course, we don't have a strong temperature database from that time period, but that's what we observe in terms of anecdotal reports. We haven't had a strong cooling effect yet...that's impossible with just the 11-year cycle. The cooling effect is coming down the line as we continue with record-low activity, just as the warming from the Grand Maximum lasted from 1850-2000 along the duration of the entire period of higher activity. You can see how the cycle is struggling right now:

You can't just parallel PDO cycles to global temperature as not each of the cycles is exactly the same. Most of the cooling effect occurs from the strength of the -ENSO events caused by the -PDO; this is the mechanism for 90% of the cooling. We have had a fairly neutral ENSO since 2007 when the PDO flipped negative, with one moderate La Niña, one weak La Niña and one strong El Niño...but now we seem to be getting into the chain of La Niñas as caused the cooling in the late 1940s/1950s...remember than 48-49, 49-50, and 50-51 were all -ENSO years as well as 54-55, 55-56, and 56-57. This series compounded the cooling effect. How many times do I have to explain this to you about La Niña being the primary forcing mechanism behind the -PDO cooling effect, and the difference in the distribution of La Niñas between the 1940s and now? Can you stop being stubborn and obscuring the facts?

The 2000s averaged +.1C on the ONI. This was less than the near .3C ONI average in the 1990s, but still significant with one strong El Niño and one moderate El Niño which was part of a multi-year +ENSO event. We're very unlikely to see a positive number this decade. So there's a difference right there, and one that will undoubtedly reduce the global temperature anomaly. Bethesda is right, in essence: the 2000s were dominated by El Niño, and believe me NYC metro knows it with all the incredible winters in the early part of the decade.

You're also saying the Atlantic Ocean SSTs have no impact on global temperatures, which makes absolutely zero sense. Of course they are overshadowed by many larger factors, but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant, Andrew. Anything that cools via upwelling reduces the anomaly at the surface. The +AMO is probably the one reason the 09-10 El Niño was even remotely competitive with 97-98. Obviously you can't find a good statistical correlation between the AMO and temperature anomalies because there are so many other factors like the PDO, ENSO, and solar that are more important. It's a small piece of the puzzle, but that doesn't mean you can discount it. It's amazing how you just ignore anything that doesn't agree with your pre-conceptions of AGW.

The heat will manifest itself in the oceans, not at the surface, with a -PDO/-ENSO pattern. Also, if we can't find the missing heat, we have to review satellite data showing an energy imbalance and verify if this is a correct analysis and where it might be going. If energy can't be gained or lost in a closed system, where is it? And no, people aren't going to be impressed with Trenberth saying "We can't find the missing energy but we know the Earth is warming. It has to be." That's not going to cut it in the public arena, buddy. People don't care about heat floating around the system somewhere in outer space...they want to see that the actual surface warming projected by IPCC is verifying, that the devastating impacts including more hurricanes and very mild winters projected by the likes of the Hadley Center and Al Gore are verifying. Otherwise they will be unimpressed and not take action. I'm an environmentalist and I'm unimpressed so far.

If surface temperatures do not rise and it is only the oceans accumulating heat, then ecosystem damage, floods, and droughts will be none issues, as these are mostly caused by dramatic changes in surface temperatures. Also, if increasing volcanic activity and decreasing solar activity reduces the energy imbalance, then overall we have less to worry about. The question isn't whether we should worry about AGW, because obviously we should, but it's one of economic cost/benefit analysis. Would we be better off spending a billion dollars on climate change or on building better schools and fighting malaria in Africa? Would we be better off cutting our carbon emissions drastically and living a more austere lifestyle, or just enjoying the comforts fossil fuels have brought us in being well heated and well fed? These are the questions we need to answer.

[skierinvermont]

The cooling effect is coming down the line as we continue with record-low activity, just as the warming from the Grand Maximum lasted from 1850-2000 along the duration of the entire period of higher activity.

And how do you have the slightest idea whether most of that was from GHGs and there was only a brief rise in temperatures associated with the solar increases 1910-1940 which had very little lag, Nate? You have no idea, Nate. And physics says there is no plausible mechanism whereby it took the earth hundreds of years to respond to a .3W/m2 increase in TSI.

[nzucker]

And how do you have the slightest idea whether most of that was from GHGs and there was only a brief rise in temperatures associated with the solar increases which had very little lag, Nate? You have no idea, Nate. And physics says there is no plausible mechanism whereby it took the earth hundreds of years to respond to a .3W/m2 increase in TSI.

Can you come online for a sec? I need to talk to you about contest, Vermont etc....

I don't really have any idea but solar activity has closely paralleled temperatures in the last 1000 years. Also, if you read Landscheidt and other studies, there's an emerging belief that solar can affect other global temperatures variables like ENSO and the PDO. Solar minimums go way beyond TSI as they can vastly influence blocking patterns, ENSO/PDO, and potentially global cloud cover. I mean no one can honestly say that the dramatic climate change during the Maunder Minimum was just a result of TSI. I keep trying to tell you this but you won't believe it just because the scientific evidence doesn't yet exist; solar science is a nascent field, as is climate studies in general, so obviously we have much more to learn and so few analogs in our database. And there is a lag observed if you do some research about when the coldest winters and greatest freezes in North America and Europe happened, especially thinking about 1708-1709 (after the core of the Maunder) and 1816-1817 (well after the Dalton had begun). This is obviously anecdotal data but it's all we have to go on when we talk about the climate so long ago. I believe if we're heading into another Maunder, those climate and weather patterns will repeat themselves in some form or another.

I also don't believe much of the temperature increase since 1850 was due to GHGs...we don't have satellite records to verify that before 1979, and also the cooling in the 1950s and 1960s seems to debunk the theory that it was just a matter of changes in carbon emissions driving differences in global temperature. There's just so much unknown about the solar cycle and its effects that I can't really be sure, and neither can the IPCC or any meteorologist for that matter. That's why we need more data before making billion-dollar decisions about global warming that are going to affect countless lives, whether it's a tax on gasoline, a reduction in foreign aid to defer the money to climate mitigation, etc.

[WeatherRusty]

Can you come online for a sec? I need to talk to you about contest, Vermont etc....

I don't really have any idea but solar activity has closely paralleled temperatures in the last 1000 years. Also, if you read Landscheidt and other studies, there's an emerging belief that solar can affect other global temperatures variables like ENSO and the PDO. Solar minimums go way beyond TSI as they can vastly influence blocking patterns, ENSO/PDO, and potentially global cloud cover. I mean no one can honestly say that the dramatic climate change during the Maunder Minimum was just a result of TSI. I keep trying to tell you this but you won't believe it just because the scientific evidence doesn't yet exist; solar science is a nascent field, as is climate studies in general, so obviously we have much more to learn and so few analogs in our database. And there is a lag observed if you do some research about when the coldest winters and greatest freezes in North America and Europe happened, especially thinking about 1708-1709 (after the core of the Maunder) and 1816-1817 (well after the Dalton had begun). This is obviously anecdotal data but it's all we have to go on when we talk about the climate so long ago. I believe if we're heading into another Maunder, those climate and weather patterns will repeat themselves in some form or another.

I also don't believe much of the temperature increase since 1850 was due to GHGs...we don't have satellite records to verify that before 1979, and also the cooling in the 1950s and 1960s seems to debunk the theory that it was just a matter of changes in carbon emissions driving differences in global temperature. There's just so much unknown about the solar cycle and its effects that I can't really be sure, and neither can the IPCC or any meteorologist for that matter. That's why we need more data before making billion-dollar decisions about global warming that are going to affect countless lives, whether it's a tax on gasoline, a reduction in foreign aid to defer the money to climate mitigation, etc.

The 1816 year without a summer was most assuredly brought about by low solar activity, but to a much larger degree by the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815. This was the largest volcanic eruption on Earth in 1,600 years.

[BethesdaWX]

And how do you have the slightest idea whether most of that was from GHGs and there was only a brief rise in temperatures associated with the solar increases 1910-1940 which had very little lag, Nate? You have no idea, Nate. And physics says there is no plausible mechanism whereby it took the earth hundreds of years to respond to a .3W/m2 increase in TSI.

Well, there could be something to what you said, since PDO has a correlation to solar. Not saying PDO/AMO was the only cause, of course ......thus being responsible for the warmth during that time, but the Global Climate was in an almost parallell state in the 1930's/mid 40's to what we're seeing now.

[Mencken_Fan]

The debate will only get worse this next decade I'm afraid. We will probably continue to see a flat line in global temps regardless of the "heat accumulated".

I see merit on both sides of the global warming fence but personally have always wondered why so much of the "heating" is supposed to be in the air instead of the water.

I would look to the oceans for global warming more than I'd look at city temperatures. But then what do I know?

Whatever the case, I'm with you 100% that the debate will get worse before it gets better.

[WeatherRusty]

I see merit on both sides of the global warming fence but personally have always wondered why so much of the "heating" is supposed to be in the air instead of the water.

I would look to the oceans for global warming more than I'd look at city temperatures. But then what do I know?

Whatever the case, I'm with you 100% that the debate will get worse before it gets better.

You are 100% correct in that assessment. Better than 90% of the increasing energy is being accumulated by the oceans. I have heard....get ready for this.....that the heat going into the oceans as given by the ~0.9W/m^2 imbalance at the TOA is the equivalent of the heat generated by 180,000 nuclear power plants...every second!