2010 Global Temps

[skierinvermont]

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.

The point is that blocking on earth is an effect of solar changes not a predictor of them.

The solar changes we have observed are a strong extended minimum but that doesn't necessarily mean a Dalton is coming. Sure it is possible, but nobody really knows. I am sure if you have proof that a Dalton is so "obviously" coming, the experts would love to hear it. Write and publish a paper with your proof.

[WeatherRusty]

I must bump this up because it's importance should not be ignored like it is around here:

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.

[nzucker]

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.

The type of skepticism seen on these forums is not akin to oil companies or Sarah Palin saying global warming doesn't exist. All of us here acknowledge that the Earth has warmed since 1900, and that humans have played a role in the warming due to their emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Our skepticism derives from the IPCC/Hadley Center overestimates of warming as shown by the computer models, the questionable scientific tactics at play, and the lack of discussion of key natural cycles such as solar minima and the PDO. This is a very different brand of skepticism from being a denier due to industry bias. I am not tied to any industry, I am an underemployed college graduate who believes very strongly in environmental protection. I used to believe very strongly in AGW, too...but seeing the lack of surface warming, the exaggerations by Hansen, Gore, Hadley Center, and the big solar minimum coming have made me more skeptical. I still recycle everything I can, buy local/organic foods, pick up litter whenever I see it, donate to environmental organizations such as Rainforest Action Network. So I'm not a pro-industry skeptic; it's my meteorology background that makes me question much of the science involved just as other meteorologist and amateur weather fanatics on this site have questioned it. Different story, Rusty.

The point is that blocking on earth is an effect of solar changes not a predictor of them.

The solar changes we have observed are a strong extended minimum but that doesn't necessarily mean a Dalton is coming. Sure it is possible, but nobody really knows. I am sure if you have proof that a Dalton is so "obviously" coming, the experts would love to hear it. Write and publish a paper with your proof.

Extreme blocking patterns when they are not expected can be a sign of an impending dramatic minimum. Of course, it is not a causal mechanism but the pattern we are seeing stinks of an extreme minimum with the record -NAO/-AO. Why are you so caught up in the importance of the peer-reviewed process when we're having a casual discussion on a meteorology forum? No one can prove a Dalton Minimum is coming, but I'm sure I could write a convincing paper about the potential using Landscheidt's research, NASA's changes in solar modeling, the extreme weather pattern in Europe, Eastern North America and Greenland that parallels what we saw during the Dalton and Maunder, etc. But I have to go to work tomorrow morning at 7:30am so I won't be doing that.

[BethesdaWX]

The recent solar Min was completely Missed by the great "computer models", which had the strongest solar cycle on record at one time.

Given that we have a Westerly/+QBO, the pattern would usually support a +NAO/+AO, and stratospheric conditions would suck for blocking. Solar Has completely overwhelmed terrestrial drivers...everything.

The Biggest solar enhanced cooling most likely has not hit home yet, given the drop in Mid 2008. While lags have been progged from 2-8 years, I;d be surprised if we don't see big cooling by 2012.

[ORH_wxman]

I think its a problem if IPCC is busting in the next decade. Not because it proves that they are wrong for the future beyond that, but its because their goal is to make the world aware of climate change and its potential consequences. If they are looking like fools 10 years from now, they lose credibility (they are already losing it) with the general public and a lot of other people who make important decisions.

If their goal is to be the world's experts on climate change and to make the public aware of it, then they better damn well try to look smart in the shorter term.

[tacoman25]

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.

Thank God we have you to save us, Rusty!

[tacoman25]

I must bump this up because it's importance should not be ignored like it is around here:

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 problem is that you equate questioning the IPCC with questioning all climate science. It's not one and the same.

[WeatherRusty]

The problem is that you equate questioning the IPCC with questioning all climate science. It's not one and the same.

It's not me associating all of climate science with the IPCC. I'm not the one claiming falsification of AGW based on IPCC scenarios as if they are rigorous predictions of future warming within certain time frames.

[LakeEffectKing]

It's not me associating all of climate science with the IPCC. I'm not the one claiming falsification of AGW based on IPCC scenarios as if they are rigorous predictions of future warming within certain time frames.

Give an example that would falsify the AGW hypotheses.

[tacoman25]

It's not me associating all of climate science with the IPCC. I'm not the one claiming falsification of AGW based on IPCC scenarios as if they are rigorous predictions of future warming within certain time frames.

Who is? I'm not, and neither are nzucker or ORHwx. We are simply pointing out the fact that the premier global climate authority is having trouble getting their forecasts to verify. The implications of that are left to the individual to decide.

[nzucker]

Who is? I'm not, and neither are nzucker or ORHwx. We are simply pointing out the fact that the premier global climate authority is having trouble getting their forecasts to verify. The implications of that are left to the individual to decide.

Exactly...no one is saying that the physics of AGW are a hoax. I don't think Rusty needs to post his 3.7W/m2 figure anymore...we get the point! The physics of greenhouse gases are real and do pose somewhat of a threat to our world. But the fact is IPCC has not had high forecasting verification, and those who have attempted to model various aspects of the climate with computers have had trouble. We also may be entering an unprecedented era with a Dalton-like solar minimum and very cold Pacific, which could change how much warming we see in the relevant timescale.

[BethesdaWX]

Thank God we have you to save us, Rusty!

lol agreed.........and SKEPTICS are the crazy ones?

I've never seen this magnitude of bullcrap.

[BethesdaWX]

Exactly...no one is saying that the physics of AGW are a hoax. I don't think Rusty needs to post his 3.7W/m2 figure anymore...we get the point! The physics of greenhouse gases are real and do pose somewhat of a threat to our world. But the fact is IPCC has not had high forecasting verification, and those who have attempted to model various aspects of the climate with computers have had trouble. We also may be entering an unprecedented era with a Dalton-like solar minimum and very cold Pacific, which could change how much warming we see in the relevant timescale.

Not to mention, our predictions are our "best guesses" so to speak... Our science behing the GHE in Earths atmosphere is nowhere near sound, so We'll know very soon if these formulas are correct..... we better start warming fast...1.5 decades with no trend don't help.

[skierinvermont]

I think its a problem if IPCC is busting in the next decade. Not because it proves that they are wrong for the future beyond that, but its because their goal is to make the world aware of climate change and its potential consequences. If they are looking like fools 10 years from now, they lose credibility (they are already losing it) with the general public and a lot of other people who make important decisions.

If their goal is to be the world's experts on climate change and to make the public aware of it, then they better damn well try to look smart in the shorter term.

I agree with this strongly... The IPCC needs to pay more attention to ocean and solar cycles simply for the sake of making more accurate short term predictions and gaining public confidence, even if these short term temperature effects have no influence on the long term (50, 100+ yrs) energy balance or temperature of the earth.

[skierinvermont]

Extreme blocking patterns when they are not expected can be a sign of an impending dramatic minimum.

No, they aren't. There is no causal mechanism whereby blocking on earth blots out the sun. The mechanism is the other way around. There have been numerous extreme blocking patterns in the last century and none of them portended a Dalton or Maunder.

[BethesdaWX]

No, they aren't. There is no causal mechanism whereby blocking on earth blots out the sun. The mechanism is the other way around. There have been numerous extreme blocking patterns in the last century and none of them portended a Dalton or Maunder.

I actually agree with you on this one. The Uber Blocking, I'd think, would be an Effect of solar, since the forcing enacting this is the Sun itself. All I know, there being a +QBO and a Stronger PV...............and we see THIS

Whatever forcing caused the -AO/-NAO last year is even Stronger This year, it takes alot to override the signals we've seen. Heck, the -AO could end up going to -7 as suggested by a few of the ensembles, which have been consistantly too HIGH!

[nzucker]

I actually agree with you on this one. The Uber Blocking, I'd think, would be an Effect of solar, since the forcing enacting this is the Sun itself. All I know, there being a +QBO and a Stronger PV...............and we see THIS

Whatever forcing caused the -AO/-NAO last year is even Stronger This year, it takes alot to override the signals we've seen. Heck, the -AO cold end up going to -7 as sugested by a few of the ensembles, which have been consistantly too HIGH

I totally agree that it's an effect of the solar minimum, not a cause.

That doesn't mean you can't use the incredible blocking to conclude that we might be entering a significant solar minimum, given the correlation with past solar events and blocking patterns. There doesn't have to be a causal mechanism involved to use this conclusion.

The drop progged in the AO is just unbelievable, one of the most anomalous patterns I've ever seen in a state that doesn't support it. Good stuff!

[BethesdaWX]

I totally agree that it's an effect of the solar minimum, not a cause.

That doesn't mean you can't use the incredible blocking to conclude that we might be entering a significant solar minimum, given the correlation with past solar events and blocking patterns. There doesn't have to be a causal mechanism involved to use this conclusion.

The drop progged in the AO is just unbelievable, one of the most anomalous patterns I've ever seen in a state that doesn't support it. Good stuff!

Ah, I see, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that our -AO/-NAO preludes the Solar Min....

And yes, if anything is "unprecedented", its back to back years with sub -6 AO's, and this one is during the +QBO & Uber PV/La Nina.........whatever forcing was present last year, is twice as strong this year.

Anyone have thoughts on next year?

[beneficii]

Give an example that would falsify the AGW hypotheses.

This is a legitimate question.

[WeatherRusty]

Give an example that would falsify the AGW hypotheses.

1) If the build up of CO2 were determined not to be of anthropogenic origin.

2) If spectral analysis failed to show increases in IR absorption at the very wavelengths absorbed by CO2, methane etc.

3) If the stratosphere were not cooling while the troposphere is warming.

4) If days were warming at the same rate as nights.

[beneficii]

1) If the build up of CO2 were determined not to be of anthropogenic origin.

2) If spectral analysis failed to show increases in IR absorption at the very wavelengths absorbed by CO2, methane etc.

3) If the stratosphere were not cooling while the troposphere is warming.

4) If days were warming at the same rate as nights.

Thank you. I posted something similar in another thread, though it was ignored.

[LakeEffectKing]

Thank you. I posted something similar in another thread, though it was ignored.

All 4 of those tests would only be evidence for falsification. Our contribution of CO2 is NOT questionable.....we burn FF, thus we add to the budget. The hypothesis carries that to imply warming to the surface temperature of the globe at .2 to .4 C / decade.

My point is, is those claiming the degree of warming to our globe is fact, or incontrovertable is just as wrong as those who claim there is no way we are having any influence at all. IE....the hypothesis is NOT falsifiable, based on our current data collection methods.

[Jaguars]

Exactly...no one is saying that the physics of AGW are a hoax. I don't think Rusty needs to post his 3.7W/m2 figure anymore...we get the point! The physics of greenhouse gases are real and do pose somewhat of a threat to our world. But the fact is IPCC has not had high forecasting verification, and those who have attempted to model various aspects of the climate with computers have had trouble. We also may be entering an unprecedented era with a Dalton-like solar minimum and very cold Pacific, which could change how much warming we see in the relevant timescale.

chaos theory

ain't it a b**ch?

[Snowbo]

All 4 of those tests would only be evidence for falsification. Our contribution of CO2 is NOT questionable.....we burn FF, thus we add to the budget. The hypothesis carries that to imply warming to the surface temperature of the globe at .2 to .4 C / decade.

My point is, is those claiming the degree of warming to our globe is fact, or incontrovertable is just as wrong as those who claim there is no way we are having any influence at all. IE....the hypothesis is NOT falsifiable, based on our current data collection methods.

Can you or anyone refer me to a graph which shows global temperature trends for, let us say, 100-200 years? I would like to see for myself. I would say that many people on both sides of the argument confuse weather and climate. They are two different animals. 10 years is only a hiccup, it seems to me.

My own feeling is that global warming is happening but, it is being overstated. I like the cooling idea but, I don't think it will last for very long.

Has anyone ever settled the question of what is the SOURCE of the CO2? Anthropogenic? Natural? Combination of both?

I hope someone has some answers because I don't have 100 years to wait around.

[BethesdaWX]

Can you or anyone refer me to a graph which shows global temperature trends for, let us say, 100-200 years? I would like to see for myself. I would say that many people on both sides of the argument confuse weather and climate. They are two different animals. 10 years is only a hiccup, it seems to me.

My own feeling is that global warming is happening but, it is being overstated. I like the cooling idea but, I don't think it will last for very long.

Has anyone ever settled the question of what is the SOURCE of the CO2? Anthropogenic? Natural? Combination of both?

I hope someone has some answers because I don't have 100 years to wait around.

Temperature graphs that are not satellite have been botched, so, No, we do not. We have 31.5 years of good data.

Question isn't if CO2 is caused by humans, its the effect. Its probably nothing more than a nuisiance.

[WeatherRusty]

Can you or anyone refer me to a graph which shows global temperature trends for, let us say, 100-200 years? I would like to see for myself. I would say that many people on both sides of the argument confuse weather and climate. They are two different animals. 10 years is only a hiccup, it seems to me.

My own feeling is that global warming is happening but, it is being overstated. I like the cooling idea but, I don't think it will last for very long.

Has anyone ever settled the question of what is the SOURCE of the CO2? Anthropogenic? Natural? Combination of both?

I hope someone has some answers because I don't have 100 years to wait around.

The answer to the source of the additional CO2 is.... very close to 100%. The natural background concentration of CO2 has not exceeded about 280 parts per million in at least the past 400,000 years and probably longer. It now stands at 388 ppm. We also determine the anthropogenic origin of the accumulating CO2 by the isotopic signature of increasing C12 relative to C13. Plants incorporate C12 over C13 as they grow. As we burn ancient fossilized carbon we release a disproportionate quantity of C12 to the atmosphere.

[Snowbo]

Temperature graphs that are not satellite have been botched, so, No, we do not. We have 31.5 years of good data.

Question isn't if CO2 is caused by humans, its the effect. Its probably nothing more than a nuisiance.

How were the Temps botched? Why should all that data be discarded?

[WeatherRusty]

All 4 of those tests would only be evidence for falsification. Our contribution of CO2 is NOT questionable.....we burn FF, thus we add to the budget. The hypothesis carries that to imply warming to the surface temperature of the globe at .2 to .4 C / decade.

My point is, is those claiming the degree of warming to our globe is fact, or incontrovertable is just as wrong as those who claim there is no way we are having any influence at all. IE....the hypothesis is NOT falsifiable, based on our current data collection methods.

Make that an average 0.2C per decade. Also, this figure is dependent on the equilibrium climate sensitivity which lies between 2C-4.5C per doubling of CO2 by best estimate.

[Snowbo]

The answer to the source of the additional CO2 is.... very close to 100%. The natural background concentration of CO2 has not exceeded about 280 parts per million in at least the past 400,000 years and probably longer. It now stands at 388 ppm. We also determine the anthropogenic origin of the accumulating CO2 by the isotopic signature of increasing C12 relative to C13. Plants incorporate C12 over C13 as they grow. As we burn ancient fossilized carbon we release a disproportionate quantity of C12 to the atmosphere.

Thanks, OK so it is not likely from volcanic activity, etc.

[WeatherRusty]

Thanks, OK so it is not likely from volcanic activity, etc.

The annual discharge of CO2 by human activities exceeds that from average volcanic activity by 140 to 1.