2010 Global Temps

[tacoman25]

The emphasis placed on these IPCC scenarios like A1B is grossly misplaced when calling into question the validity of the science. These scenarios are heavily weighted to the consideration of factors such as economic growth, population growth, choices of energy production and utilization etc.

The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:

• Rapid economic growth.
• A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
• The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
• A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.

There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:

• A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels (Fossil Intensive).
• A1B - A balanced emphasis on all energy sources.
• A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.

This is why I emphasize the basic science, which these IPCC scenarios do not do. The scenarios are if this then that projections dependent on several factors unrelated to the physical science.

The situation to date has most closely resembled the "warmest scenarios"...the emphasis globally has continued to be on fossil-fuels.

[tacoman25]

It is as simple as I make it out to be. The Earth has been warming and continues to warm as revealed by the energy imbalance measured at the top of atmosphere. Do I use reductionist reasoning? You be I do. The goal of science is to reduce complex phenomena to understandable components by using the laws of nature to break down the apparent complexity. The climate system is a complex one, but we understand the physics of how and why objects warm and cool very well.

The IPCC does not ignore other climate factors. You can claim they do and by extension the entire field of climatology does, but that does not make it so. By definition, the field of climatology embraces all the know factors that go into defining our climate and what makes it tick. The long term forcing by CO2 at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling simply outweighs any of the other current factors by orders of magnitude.

None of this answers the primary question: why aren't surface temperatures responding the way scientists have predicted they would? Again, this is the main concern with AGW.

And you can claim that the IPCC factors in oceanic/natural cycles all day, but none of their computer predictions seem to reflect them. If they did, the possibility of flat or slightly declining global temps over a couple decades would be within the realm of possibility.

[beneficii]

WeatherRusty,

I think the main question is, though I tend to defer to the scientists that they did consider it, couldn't a Little Ice Age all of a sudden form? I know there is little evidence for such a view, but they keep thinking that the internal energy transfer will keep surface temperatures suppressed for some time to come and it will make a laughingstock out of AGW proponents and they don't want to see the AGW proponents be made fun of. After all it has been flat for a decade, so why won't it keep going for 2 decades? Oh and what Trenberth said about not being able to track the entire earth's energy budget and the fact that for 2 years the temperature hasn't been following the 2007 IPCC forecasts or some such.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Could you guys leave the IPCC out of this and just present raw data?

what does the Raw data say?

why do you care what the IPCC or some guy named Hansen says or does? If you think that is a worthy cause to stop them then take it up.

but this is forum for science and thread for global temps..guessing that means past, present, and future.

Everything but science can be take n out of this thread and great ideas and question can be proposed but that won't happen as long as folks troll others with there spam. The good posters need to stop this crap and start expanding there knowledge of this without bias glasses in either direction, separate the fluff from the real and we can get somewhere.

everyone is fine except Betheda who has pretty much ruined this forum. I have no idea why he is allowed to post here. he is spamming and trolling these boards...I would think a scientific debate would want to be kept very clean and progressive. telling people they are supid and mocking them with cute smileys is childish and embarrassing to this community. He has rubbed off on other posters who have now taken it down a notch.

I hope we can get this mess cleaned up and get back to science with an open mind.

[WeatherRusty]

None of this answers the primary question: why aren't surface temperatures responding the way scientists have predicted they would? Again, this is the main concern with AGW.

And you can claim that the IPCC factors in oceanic/natural cycles all day, but none of their computer predictions seem to reflect them. If they did, the possibility of flat or slightly declining global temps over a couple decades would be within the realm of possibility.

Well, the scientists will tell you that the temperature is on track given that the per decade rate of warming at the surface has been about 0.17C since the 1970's. Each successive decade has been warmer than it's predecessors. Of course the manufactured doubt machine calls all of this into question.

Until very recently, computer models have not been capable of predicting oceanic cycles at all because it is not known what precisely causes them. Over the long term these functions are dubbed into the code as static parametrizations and averaged out to zero which in the long run is safe to assume because that is how ocean cycles behave in the real world averaged over time. The forcing by CO2 is prolonged and slowly but steadily increasing thus the models output linear results which depict that linearity which dominates the lesser anticipated forcings. The computer models are not designed to reflect high resolution time factored real world events. They are not yet capable of doing that.

Part of the problem we have I believe, is the expectation of cataclysmic events residing right around the corner and in our own backyards, or that real world warming as indicated by the models should show linearity if the theory is correct. The real world does not work that way. The likelihood of cataclysmic events increases in probability only. Certain event are more likely to occur as the global circulation attempts to realign itself in accordance with changes in pressure patterns resulting from temperature deviations. We see this occurring all around the world in record temperature and precipitation events and it will continue.

[WeatherRusty]

WeatherRusty,

I think the main question is, though I tend to defer to the scientists that they did consider it, couldn't a Little Ice Age all of a sudden form? I know there is little evidence for such a view, but they keep thinking that the internal energy transfer will keep surface temperatures suppressed for some time to come and it will make a laughingstock out of AGW proponents and they don't want to see the AGW proponents be made fun of. After all it has been flat for a decade, so why won't it keep going for 2 decades? Oh and what Trenberth said about not being able to track the entire earth's energy budget and the fact that for 2 years the temperature hasn't been following the 2007 IPCC forecasts or some such.

It is thought that the LIA resulted from a combination of decreased solar output and increased volcanic activity. Episodes of climate change are forced by changes in energy distribution, the opacity of the atmosphere and to a lesser degree the intrinsic output from the Sun.

When CO2 is doubled, 3.7W/m^2 additional energy over that of the mid 19th century will be directed downward to the surface. If the Sun were to stay dormant so that the Earth recieved 1365W/m^2 rather than 1366W/m^2 at the top of atmosphere you tell me which forcing would win out.

Edit: There was a typo...it is fixed

[beneficii]

It is thought that the LIA resulted from a combination of decreased solar output and increased volcanic activity. Episodes of climate change are forced by changes in energy distribution, the opacity of the atmosphere and to a lesser degree the intrinsic output from the Sun.

When CO2 is doubled, 3.7W/m^2 additional energy over that of the mid 19th century will be directed downward to the surface. If the Sun were to stay dormant so that the Earth recieved 135.5W/m^2 rather than 1366W/m^2 at the top of atmosphere you tell me which forcing would win out.

Do you mean if the Sun went dormant and its irradience fell 90%? Or did you mean for it to fall only about 1 W/m^2? (There may have been a typo in your post.)

In the former case, the Sun's forcing would definitely win out, but in the latter, as you described with the energy dispersal in the upper atmosphere, CO2 would win out.

[beneficii]

Part of the problem we have I believe, is the expectation of cataclysmic events residing right around the corner and in our own backyards, or that real world warming as indicated by the models should show linearity if the theory is correct. The real world does not work that way. The likelihood of cataclysmic events increases in probability only. Certain event are more likely to occur as the global circulation attempts to realign itself in accordance with changes in pressure patterns resulting from temperature deviations. We see this occurring all around the world in record temperature and precipitation events and it will continue.

Right, I've heard about this sort of thing: Applying the share that global warming contributed to an event. It's hard to say absolutely if an event occurred because of global warming or not, but you can give a probability. I read about it in Newsweek. What do you know about this?

[Snow_Miser]

We will bow down to the IPCC once they actually start getting their predictions right.

Excellent point ORH. The IPCC has completely failed with their temperature forecasts. Looks like their profitable "disaster" scenarios turned out to be bunk.

If the temperature doesn't warm 1 Deg C by 2011, the IPCC models will have completely been falsified.

Maybe more grant funding will get them an even more scary graph...

[WeatherRusty]

Do you mean if the Sun went dormant and its irradience fell 90%? Or did you mean for it to fall only about 1 W/m^2? (There may have been a typo in your post.)

In the former case, the Sun's forcing would definitely win out, but in the latter, as you described with the energy dispersal in the upper atmosphere, CO2 would win out.

Exactly, and we need not fear the repeat of a LIA any time soon.

[tacoman25]

Well, the scientists will tell you that the temperature is on track given that the per decade rate of warming at the surface has been about 0.17C since the 1970's. Each successive decade has been warmer than it's predecessors. Of course the manufactured doubt machine calls all of this into question.

Until very recently, computer models have not been capable of predicting oceanic cycles at all because it is not known what precisely causes them. Over the long term these functions are dubbed into the code as static parametrizations and averaged out to zero which in the long run is safe to assume because that is how ocean cycles behave in the real world averaged over time. The forcing by CO2 is prolonged and slowly but steadily increasing thus the models output linear results which depict that linearity which dominates the lesser anticipated forcings. The computer models are not designed to reflect high resolution time factored real world events. They are not yet capable of doing that.

Part of the problem we have I believe, is the expectation of cataclysmic events residing right around the corner and in our own backyards, or that real world warming as indicated by the models should show linearity if the theory is correct. The real world does not work that way. The likelihood of cataclysmic events increases in probability only. Certain event are more likely to occur as the global circulation attempts to realign itself in accordance with changes in pressure patterns resulting from temperature deviations. We see this occurring all around the world in record temperature and precipitation events and it will continue.

First of all, can you please resist from using stereotypical terms like "the manufactured doubt machine"? It just makes you look less objective, honestly.

Second, while the rate of warming from the 1970s to 2000s was roughly .17C/decade, the rate of rise actually slowed significantly from the 1990s to 2000s (.1C/decade when Pinatubo is factored in).

Your points about the limitations of computer models are all well and good...but then if the IPCC and others are aware of these limitations, why do they make predictions that may be falsified in the short/medim range (10-30 years) due to other factors?

The last paragraph makes little sense to me. Record/extreme temperature/precipitation events have always occurred, so how exactly can current ones be attributed to AGW? How do we know more are occurring now than before?

[tacoman25]

Exactly, and we need not fear the repeat of a LIA any time soon.

Tell that to Europe, which just experienced one of the coldest Decembers since the LIA. There is a lot of evidence that part of the reason the LIA was so cold in Europe/North America was because of extreme NH blocking...

[skierinvermont]

And this is a significant question, since the main issue with AGW people are concerned with is not the earth's energy accumulation, but surface warming and the effects from that.

That question was essentially answered with the publication of Loehle 2009.

[skierinvermont]

Excellent point ORH. The IPCC has completely failed with their temperature forecasts. Looks like their profitable "disaster" scenarios turned out to be bunk.

If the temperature doesn't warm 1 Deg C by 2011, the IPCC models will have completely been falsified.

Maybe more grant funding will get them an even more scary graph...

That is a bogus graph which inaccurately represents the confidence intervals of the models and also inaccurately starts models well above the observed 2003 temperature which they weren't.

A more accurate graph is the one that ORH posted. Although even that graph requires careful interpretation by someone knowledgeable of statistical techniques to draw conclusions.

[tacoman25]

That question was essentially answered with the publication of Loehle 2009.

How so? Loehle's paper was an analysis of a short period since 2003 showing OHC failing to rise at the expected rate...?

[skierinvermont]

How so? Loehle's paper was an analysis of a short period since 2003 showing OHC failing to rise at the expected rate...?

Sorry I meant Schuckmann 2009

[tacoman25]

Sorry I meant Schuckmann 2009

So the heat is being sequestered into the deep oceans...ok, I don't believe that was expected by most climate scientists. At least I know they didn't expect it to play out as it has. Regardless, it proves that the earth has some tricks up its sleeves...negative feedbacks/natural absorption of energy that the models did not understand.

This again goes back to the point that the climate system is extremely complex and poorly understood. Way too many assumptions/speculations are preached as fact and lead to conclusions/predictions that turn out to be erroneous.

[skierinvermont]

So the heat is being sequestered into the deep oceans...ok, I don't believe that was expected by most climate scientists. At least I know they didn't expect it to play out as it has. Regardless, it proves that the earth has some tricks up its sleeves...negative feedbacks/natural absorption of energy that the models did not understand.

This again goes back to the point that the climate system is extremely complex and poorly understood. Way too many assumptions/speculations are preached as fact and lead to conclusions/predictions that turn out to be erroneous.

A lot of the heat over the last 10 years was going into the deep oceans, but I don't think it was any more than expected by the models. The earth continues to accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this decade (although not to the point of invalidating the models IMO).. but will probably change next decade.

[tacoman25]

A lot of the heat over the last 10 years was going into the deep oceans, but I don't think it was any more than expected by the models. The earth continues to accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this decade (although not to the point of invalidating the models IMO).. but will probably change next decade.

My point is that the general assumption seems to be this formula: add x amount of energy to earth = x amout of surface warming. But it's probably not that simple. What exactly makes you think things will change over the next decade?

[nzucker]

A lot of the heat over the last 10 years was going into the deep oceans, but I don't think it was any more than expected by the models. The earth continues to accumulate heat at a rate of .9W/m2.

The surface didn't warm quite as much as expected this decade (although not to the point of invalidating the models IMO).. but will probably change next decade.

Why would we warm more this decade with a severe -PDO, string of moderate/strong La Niñas, and a solar minimum on parallel with the Dalton? You already see the massive drop in global temperatures looking at SST maps, GFS 2m temp anomalies, RSS, etc. We're cooling at the surface rapidly, plain and simple. Sorry if that disappoints you but I'm quite pleased actually.

It's not as if the oceans are going to be like, "Hey we gotta help the IPCC out all of a sudden." Ocean feedbacks and natural cycles have been poorly modeled. The surface has warmed less than computer models suggested. Computer models are not sufficient to estimate the nuances of a complex climate. I've said that for years and continue to believe it. Show me the money.

It's amazing how much of an IPCC believer you have become. When we did our radio show together, you were much more skeptical than I; now it is the reverse and you have bought their projections and discourse hook, line, and sinker despite the revelation of numerous controversies suggesting bias and misconduct in the IPCC and Hadley Center ("we really forecasted the winter to be cold but didn't want to tell you...."), satellite temperatures once again falling and threatening the 95% confidence interval, another record cold winter in the Eastern US and Europe in a state that's supposed to be warm for us, continued pause in solar activity contradicting NASA models, etc.

[nzucker]

First of all, can you please resist from using stereotypical terms like "the manufactured doubt machine"? It just makes you look less objective, honestly.

Rusty pretends to be this objective, scientific guy just studying the evidence, but then he goes and casts aspersions on skeptics with crafty language. There is no "manufactured doubt machine"...curious, intelligent individuals are simply questioning the IPCC/Hadley world view since their projections don't seem to be verifying, their scientific discourse borders on the dishonest, and there has been a lack of interest in debate among these bureaucratic organizations. I'm an environmentalist and not tied to industry in any way, yet I am still questioning global warming because the numbers don't add up, the idea we could model the climate in 100 years on computers is heinous, and instead of seeing warmer and milder winters we're getting colder winters..which the movement tries to explain away by saying it was an expected part of global warming's modification of the jet stream. There's a lot of fishy stuff going on here, and I used to be a hook/line/sinker IPCC believer.

[Snow_Miser]

That is a bogus graph.

So skier, anything that you disagree with or don't want to see is a bogus graph? That's new...

[ORH_wxman]

So skier, anything that you disagree with or don't want to see is a bogus graph? That's new...

That graph is deceptive. I've seen it before and its skewed. The one I posted is much more accurate.

[Snow_Miser]

That graph is deceptive. I've seen it before and its skewed. The one I posted is much more accurate.

How so? And btw I didn't see your graph- it was just too darn huge!

According to your graph, the models have failed, which is no surprise...

[skierinvermont]

Why would we warm more this decade with a severe -PDO, string of moderate/strong La Niñas, and a solar minimum on parallel with the Dalton? You already see the massive drop in global temperatures looking at SST maps, GFS 2m temp anomalies, RSS, etc. We're cooling at the surface rapidly, plain and simple. Sorry if that disappoints you but I'm quite pleased actually.

It's not as if the oceans are going to be like, "Hey we gotta help the IPCC out all of a sudden." Ocean feedbacks and natural cycles have been poorly modeled. The surface has warmed less than computer models suggested. Computer models are not sufficient to estimate the nuances of a complex climate. I've said that for years and continue to believe it. Show me the money.

It's amazing how much of an IPCC believer you have become. When we did our radio show together, you were much more skeptical than I; now it is the reverse and you have bought their projections and discourse hook, line, and sinker despite the revelation of numerous controversies suggesting bias and misconduct in the IPCC and Hadley Center ("we really forecasted the winter to be cold but didn't want to tell you...."), satellite temperatures once again falling and threatening the 95% confidence interval, another record cold winter in the Eastern US and Europe in a state that's supposed to be warm for us, continued pause in solar activity contradicting NASA models, etc.

It's sort of funny how you assume we are heading into a Dalton when there nobody has any idea what is going to happen with the sun next.

[ORH_wxman]

How so? And btw I didn't see your graph- it was just too darn huge!

According to your graph, the models have failed, which is no surprise...

Its too narrow with the confidence intervals...its not to scale.

[nzucker]

It's sort of funny how you assume we are heading into a Dalton when there nobody has any idea what is going to happen with the sun next.

Solar activity is actually tracking below the Dalton Minimum right now; you can contact the meteorologist Matt Rogers for some graphs of this if you want more explanation or evidence. The blocking patterns evident with the -NAO/-AO at record-breaking levels are also typical of what we have seen with the Dalton and Maunder Minimum, so I think it's fairly safe to assume we're headed in that direction. Also, the sun's activity tends to oscillate in cycles and we've been in a higher cycle since 1850, so it's definitely time for a downturn if you believe the cyclical nature of such activity. Having such a dramatic minimum right now certainly lends support to the idea that we're entering a big-time minimum that will have noticeable effects on global temperatures, blocking patterns, and life in general.

[skierinvermont]

Solar activity is actually tracking below the Dalton Minimum right now; you can contact the meteorologist Matt Rogers for some graphs of this if you want more explanation or evidence. The blocking patterns evident with the -NAO/-AO at record-breaking levels are also typical of what we have seen with the Dalton and Maunder Minimum, so I think it's fairly safe to assume we're headed in that direction. Also, the sun's activity tends to oscillate in cycles and we've been in a higher cycle since 1850, so it's definitely time for a downturn if you believe the cyclical nature of such activity. Having such a dramatic minimum right now certainly lends support to the idea that we're entering a big-time minimum that will have noticeable effects on global temperatures, blocking patterns, and life in general.

We also had a lot of blocking in the 60s.. was it safe to assume then that we were heading into a Dalton? Makes zero sense.

Solar activity also tracked below the Dalton during the last minimum as well.. was it safe to assume we were heading for a Dalton then as well? Also makes zero sense.

Just because we have a long deep minimum doesn't mean we are heading for a Dalton which was many very weak cycles consecutively.

If you have some proof that a Dalton is so "obviously" coming, I suggest you write and publish a paper on the subject because I am sure the experts who have no idea what is coming would love to know. Sure it is possible, but nobody really knows. This is just another example of you making absolutist statements without something to back it up.

[nzucker]

We also had a lot of blocking in the 60s.. was it safe to assume then that we were heading into a Dalton?

We didn't have this much of a drop in solar activity, though. This is a very drastic drop, and you can see this from NASA constantly changing its goalposts with regards to the peak of Cycle 24. We're clearly experiencing a relatively unprecedented drop in geomagnetic flux and sunspots that is fooling NASA's sophisticated computer models.

The AO/NAO were also not as negative in the 1960s as they are now and were last winter. Summer 2009 and Winter 09-10 had the most negative NAO on record. This current winter is running close to it, even in a strong Niña/+QBO which suggests something bizarre is going on with the solar minimum.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty pretends to be this objective, scientific guy just studying the evidence, but then he goes and casts aspersions on skeptics with crafty language. There is no "manufactured doubt machine"...curious, intelligent individuals are simply questioning the IPCC/Hadley world view since their projections don't seem to be verifying, their scientific discourse borders on the dishonest, and there has been a lack of interest in debate among these bureaucratic organizations. I'm an environmentalist and not tied to industry in any way, yet I am still questioning global warming because the numbers don't add up, the idea we could model the climate in 100 years on computers is heinous, and instead of seeing warmer and milder winters we're getting colder winters..which the movement tries to explain away by saying it was an expected part of global warming's modification of the jet stream. There's a lot of fishy stuff going on here, and I used to be a hook/line/sinker IPCC believer.

The manufactured doubt machine is a well established fact. Most skeptics at this level of discourse are not aware of how they are being manipulated by these higher up industry funded propagandists. You may be as honest in your skepticism as the snow is white, but to think there does not exist an entity that seeks to spread doubt on the science of climate change and everyone messaging it or associated with it is just plain naive. This science is being attacked from all angles like nothing else before...and many an environmental issue has been fought by industry interest before.