2010 Global Temps

[skierinvermont]

Where on earth do you get your Data?????

Look at this insane El NIno dominance

The PDO did NOT go cold in 1998. Surface patterns during the La Nina Phase in 1998-2001 would push the anoms very low (PDO & global) anyway due to imbalance recovery. It was a "masked" cold anom, and has been warm for awhile. The PDO went cold in 2007..... and look what has happened to the ICE since then.....

The El Nino dominance was in the 80s and 90s.. NOT the 2000s. Since 1998 the ONI has averaged negative and the trend is flat since the start of 1998.

I didn't say the PDO went cold in 1998. i said that the PDO has averaged slightly negative since 1998. And it is the trend in the PDO that is important if we are comparing to the temperature trend. Apples to apples. The trend in the PDO is strongly negative. Ergo, the PDO has had a cooling effect on global temperatures which has helped to mask the GHG signal.

Below is a graph of the ONI since the 97-98 El Nino, as you can see the trend is zero. Your claim of ONI conditions causing warming over the last 12 years is wrong. ONI has been a neutral factor over the last 12 years.

[BethesdaWX]

The El Nino dominance was in the 80s and 90s.. NOT the 2000s. Since 1998 the ONI has averaged negative and the trend is flat since the start of 1998.

I didn't say the PDO went cold in 1998. i said that the PDO has averaged slightly negative since 1998. And it is the trend in the PDO that is important if we are comparing to the temperature trend. Apples to apples. The trend in the PDO is strongly negative. Ergo, the PDO has had a cooling effect on global temperatures which has helped to mask the GHG signal.

Below is a graph of the ONI since the 97-98 El Nino, as you can see the trend is zero. Your claim of ONI conditions causing warming over the last 12 years is wrong. ONI has been a neutral factor over the last 12 years.

Where is the source for that Image? Either way, its NOT the trend, its the DEVIATION!

You have a habit of not reading/researching. PDO went cold in 2007, NOT 1998. The El Nino may not be as dominant as in the 1990's, but it still stops La Nina. Solar cooling should NOT go into effect yet.

NOAA......

Looks El Nino dominant to me.....

More OFFICIAL Data

PDO/AMO Match very well on Both

Solar has a 5-8 year lag, so we should begin to see the effects right about now......we are.........Global anoms headed down with the La Nina, and may never crack 0.4C again

[BethesdaWX]

Right.. which actually makes the ONI trend neutral or negative. If we are talking about temperature trends we should be comparing to ONI trends. Apples to apples. The ONI trend 1998-2010 was flat.

Yes, the trend is flat, but the dominance is still El Nino. And...when the ONI trend went Flat.....Guess what happendd to global temps...... INO is driven by PDO, the AMO is an enhancer.....PDO/AMO are both affected by solar.....

Get it?

The Warmnig we've seen, Solar Radiation is one thing, however, the Galactic Cosmic Rays effect on GCC, easily from the Mordern Max, have a cloud cover reduction of 2-3% globally...which could easily explain our warming since 1850.... right when the solar cycle started up again.... good timing eh?

[skierinvermont]

Yes, the trend is flat, but the dominance is still El Nino. And...when the ONI trend went Flat.....Guess what happendd to global temps...... INO is driven by PDO, the AMO is an enhancer.....PDO/AMO are both affected by solar.....

Get it?

The Warmnig we've seen, Solar Radiation is one thing, however, the Galactic Cosmic Rays effect on GCC, easily from the Mordern Max, have a cloud cover reduction of 2-3% globally...which could easily explain our warming since 1850.... right when the solar cycle started up again.... good timing eh?

GCR don't correlate with cloud cover changes. GCR's effect on clouds is minimal at best.

The dominance is not "still El Nino." 1999-2010 the ONI averaged negative.

[skierinvermont]

Where is the source for that Image? Either way, its NOT the trend, its the DEVIATION!

You have a habit of not reading/researching. PDO went cold in 2007, NOT 1998. The El Nino may not be as dominant as in the 1990's, but it still stops La Nina. Solar cooling should NOT go into effect yet.

NOAA......

Looks El Nino dominant to me.....

My source is the CPC. I copied and pasted the CPC ONI trimonthlies into Excel and then posted the graph. You can do it yourself if you want. The trendline is clearly displayed on the graph. It is the bold red line with a slope of zero. Learn to read.. it is incredibly frustrating responding to you when you don't take the time to read what is written.

I didn't say the PDO went cold in 1998. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said the PDO has averaged negative since 1998. And that the trend since 1998 is strongly negative. Therefore the PDO has had a cooling effect on global temperature trends over the last 12 years. ENSO has averaged neutral since the start of 1998 and has no trend since the start of 1998. Therefore it has no effect one way or the other.

[BethesdaWX]

My source is the CPC. I copied and pasted the CPC ONI trimonthlies into Excel and then posted the graph. You can do it yourself if you want. The trendline is clearly displayed on the graph. It is the bold red line with a slope of zero. Learn to read.. it is incredibly frustrating responding to you when you don't take the time to read what is written.

I didn't say the PDO went cold in 1998. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said the PDO has averaged negative since 1998. And that the trend since 1998 is strongly negative. Therefore the PDO has had a cooling effect on global temperature trends over the last 12 years. ENSO has averaged neutral since the start of 1998 and has no trend since the start of 1998. Therefore it has no effect one way or the other.

Not trends dude, dominance. ONI has evged positive since the 1990's, albeit not as high. PDO has averaged positve from Late 2001-2006, and Negative from 2007 to present.... don't forget the lag, and don't forget the AMO which has cancelled out any effect to this point! Overall, since 2002, slightly positive... Yet no warming lolz!

[skierinvermont]

Not trends dude, dominance. ONI has evged positive since the 1990's, albeit not as high. PDO has averaged positve from Late 2001-2006, and Negative from 2007 to present.... don't forget the lag, and don't forget the AMO which has cancelled out any effect to this point! Overall, since 2002, slightly positive... Yet no warming lolz!

The negative trend in the PDO has contributed to cooling. We have gone from a very positive PDO in 1998 to a very negative one 2007-present with a mix of positive and negative in between. This gradual switch from very positive, to neutral, to negative, has caused cooling. The ONI shows no trend over the last 12 years and is not a significant warming/cooling factor.

[BethesdaWX]

The negative trend in the PDO has contributed to cooling. The ONI shows no trend over the last 12 years and is not a significant warming/cooling factor.

The Record Warmth this decade in the AMO has cancelled out any cooling, the +AMO is owning the stratosphere too as we speak. We didn't have the big +AMO in the 1990's. Dominance in the ONI is slightly positive in the 2000's, thanks to the recent mega El Nino.

Think....if it weren't for this recent uber Nino, we would be in the cooling trend from 2002 until now....... which would make sense, given the solar lag, cooling PDO, and still +AMO.

[skierinvermont]

The Record warming in the AMO has cancelled out any cooling, the +AMO is owning the stratosphere too as we speak. WE didn't have the bug +AMO in the 1990's. Dominance in the ONI is slightly positive in the 2000's, thanks to the recent mega El Nino.

Think....if it weren't for this recent uber Nino, we would be in the cooling trend from 2002 until now.......

You are also starting the temperature trend in a mega El Nino, so it is fair to end it in a strong El Nino as well. From 1998 the ONI trend is flat, as well as satellite-derived temperature trends. The ONI has not been a significant factor over the last 12 years because it has shown no trend. We had strong nino: Ninas: Ninos in the middle : Ninas : strong Nino.

The ONI averaged negative 1999-2010. It is not "Nino dominance"

[BethesdaWX]

You are also starting the temperature trend in a mega El Nino, so it is fair to end it in a strong El Nino as well. From 1998 the ONI trend is flat, as well as satellite-derived temperature trends.

ONI positive this decade

Ain't that the point though? The record warm AMO, Cold PDO since 2007, Solar Lag, and Slightly +ONI dominance in the 2000's....no change? CO2 has not factored in YET. if we begin the warming again through the 2020's, then I'm a believer in AGW.

[skierinvermont]

ONI positive this decade

Ain't that the point though? The record warm AMO, Cold PDO since 2007, Solar Lag, and Slightly +ONI dominance in the 2000's....no change? CO2 has not factored in YET. if we begin the warming again through the 2020's, then I'm a believer in AGW.

There is slight +ONI dominance from 2000-2010, but not from 1998-2010. If you are doing temperatures 1998-2010, compare to the ONI 1998-2010. The ONI trend 1998-2010 is zero, and it averaged neutral in value. The cold PDO 2007-present has caused cooling and has reduced the temperature trend (and helped to hide the CO2 warming trend).

[BethesdaWX]

There is slight +ONI dominance from 2000-2010, but not from 1998-2010. If you are doing temperatures 1998-2010, compare to the ONI 1998-2010. The ONI trend 1998-2010 is zero, and it averaged neutral in value. The cold PDO 2007-present has caused cooling and has reduced the temperature trend (and helped to hide the CO2 warming trend).

The AMO was negative for 1/2 of the 90's......

+AMO now is at higher avg values than the +PDO every was, for the whole decade. Its covering up PDO enhanced cooling. Solar Lag in there too, also slight +ONI from 2000-2010... No warming.

[skierinvermont]

The AMO was negative for 1/2 of the 90's......

+AMO now is at higher avg values than the +PDO every was, for the whole decade. Its covering up PDO enhanced cooling. Solar Lag in there too, also slight +ONI from 2000-2010... No warming.

There was warming from 2000-2010. There was no warming from 1998-2010. The ONI averaged neutral 1998-2010. The ONI was not warming factor over the last 12 years. The PDO was a cooling factor. The AMO was already positive by the mid 90s and has remained that way.. not a factor. Solar.. a cooling factor over the last couple years.

[BethesdaWX]

There was warming from 2000-2010. There was no warming from 1998-2010. The ONI averaged neutral 1998-2010. The ONI was not warming factor over the last 12 years. The PDO was a cooling factor. The AMO was already positive by the mid 90s and has remained that way.. not a factor. Solar.. a cooling factor over the last couple years.

Errors:

1) The 2000's decade starts in 2001 dude We're at +0.38C now

2) The +AMO was much weaker in the 1990's than this decade. AMO went warm in 1996.. 1/2 of the 1990s's had the -AMO. 1999 also had a -AMO FYI, the epic cooling of global SST's after the Uber Nino was set off.

3) If the ONI is positive dominant, it would impact global temperature from reaching NORMAL...Not that they should continue warming... which they haven't.. Less tiefor a temp drop.

4) Warming is ENHANCED when the solar first dies off.. Lag of 5-8 years, we should not see any solar enhanced cooling yet.

[BethesdaWX]

GCR don't correlate with cloud cover changes. GCR's effect on clouds is minimal at best.

The dominance is not "still El Nino." 1999-2010 the ONI averaged negative.

wrong again

http://www.agu.org/meetings/wp04/wp04-sessions/wp04_A13B.html

http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html

This has to be the most hilarious statement of the night from you

[skierinvermont]

Errors:

1) The 2000's decade starts in 2001 dude We're at +0.38C now

2) The +AMO was much weaker in the 1990's than this decade. AMO went warm in 1996.. 1/2 of the 1990s's had the -AMO. 1999 also had a -AMO FYI, the epic cooling of global SST's after the Uber Nino was set off.

3) If the ONI is positive dominant, it would impact global temperature from reaching NORMAL...Not that they should continue warming... which they haven't.. Less tiefor a temp drop.

4) Warming is ENHANCED when the solar first dies off.. Lag of 5-8 years, we should not see any solar enhanced cooling yet.

It doesn't matter what the AMO was in the early 90s. It shows no trend over the last 12 years. Therefore it is probably not having much forcing effect on temperatures one way or another.

The ONI has not been positive dominant 1998-2010.. it has been neutral and the trend is zero. It is not having much effect on temperatures one way or another.

The PDO has averaged negative 1998-2010 and the trend is strongly negative. It is having a significant cooling effect.

[skierinvermont]

wrong again

http://www.agu.org/m.../wp04_A13B.html

http://www.solarstor...CloudCover.html

This has to be the most hilarious statement of the night from you

I didn't say there was no effect. I said there is no observed correlation between clouds and GCR. This is backed up by the primary literature:

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Kazil et al. (2006) found

"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

GCR may be having a small undectable influence on global cloud cover and temperatures... but given the lack of any observed effect or correlation with clouds, the effect is likely very small.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't say there was no effect. I said there is no observed correlation between clouds and GCR. This is backed up by the primary literature:

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Kazil et al. (2006) found

"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

GCR may be having a small undectable influence on global cloud cover and temperatures... but given the lack of any observed effect or correlation with clouds, the effect is likely very small.

Exactly, nothing significant.... it only takes a 2-3% change in GCC to create the 0.7C warming we've seen... since 1850. I sugest you learn how to interpret.

You didn't read my links again.....what else would I expect

[BethesdaWX]

It doesn't matter what the AMO was in the early 90s. It shows no trend over the last 12 years. Therefore it is probably not having much forcing effect on temperatures one way or another.

The ONI has not been positive dominant 1998-2010.. it has been neutral and the trend is zero. It is not having much effect on temperatures one way or another.

The PDO has averaged negative 1998-2010 and the trend is strongly negative. It is having a significant cooling effect.

Yes the AMO does show a trend for the past 12 years. A strong +AMO will have a much higher impact than a weak +AMO> There was no strong +AMO in the 90's except during the 1998 ENSO event. The AMO went Negative for a time in year 2000, then Flipped UBER positive around 2003, and has been at record levels since. 2002-2008 saw a cooling trend, briefly interrupted by the NIno... theres your cooling... now we're at 0.38C....wow, what a death spiral

The PDO Did not go negatuve until 2007... now.. Arctic Sea ice has responded quickly

[skierinvermont]

Yes the AMO does show a trend for the past 12 years.

Wrong.. no trend in the AMO for the last 12 years (actually very slightly negative). I took the AMO values from ESLR imported into excel and added a trendline. Nearly every assertion of yours in this thread has been wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

read this

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/amoarticlel.pdf

1998 0.402[highest ever]

2005 0.326[3rd highest]

2006 0.306[ 4th highest

2003 0.266[8th highest]

2004 0.240[10th highest

The AMO's highest values, 4 of the 5 were in the 2000's.

[skierinvermont]

read this

http://icecap.us/ima...amoarticlel.pdf

1998 0.402[highest ever]

2005 0.326[3rd highest]

2006 0.306[ 4th highest

2003 0.266[8th highest]

2004 0.240[10th highest

The AMO's highest values, 4 of the 5 were in the 2000's.

Do you know what a trend is? You said there has been a trend in the AMO over the last 12 years. There has not. You fail. Again.

[nzucker]

Wrong.. no trend in the AMO for the last 12 years (actually very slightly negative). I took the AMO values from ESLR imported into excel and added a trendline. Nearly every assertion of yours in this thread has been wrong.

We are in a record high AMO though so that would make the trend in global temperatures higher...even if overall it's been up and down and no trend.

I basically agree with Bethesda's point that we've been +AMO, El Niño dominated (ONI averaged around +.1C for the 2000s), and high solar dominated...which makes it even more incredible we haven't warmed.

[BethesdaWX]

I see you posting right away skier..... you didn't read.

[BethesdaWX]

We are in a record high AMO though so that would make the trend in global temperatures higher...even if overall it's been up and down and no trend.

I basically agree with Bethesda's point that we've been +AMO, El Niño dominated (ONI averaged around +.1C for the 2000s), and high solar dominated...which makes it even more incredible we haven't warmed.

Thankyou! Its great to talk to someone who still believes in objective science.

[nzucker]

Do you know what a trend is? You said there has been a trend in the AMO over the last 12 years. There has not. You fail. Again.

He might be using "trend" in the more general sense as in "The AMO is in a warm trend compared to overall climatology." This is a perfectly acceptable use of the term and you don't need a graph to prove it. It's definitely been high lately which has been canceling out some of the cooling influence of the PDO and recent drop in solar activity. I think you should stop nitpicking and just embrace Bethesda's general point as valid even if some of his terminology is a bit confusing. The basic point is we haven't seen as much warming as expected despite the AMO and ENSO supporting it, and that we should see more significant cooling as the AMO declines in the next 10-20 years. You always want to find errors in others' posts instead of looking for the general message and trying to understand it.

a

Thankyou! Its great to talk to someone who still believes in objective science.

I am not as much of a global warming skeptic as you, and I do think you sometimes exaggerate the conspiratorial aspects of AGW, but you've definitely worked hard to understand the natural causes of climate change and to challenge the orthodoxy which is so prevalent. I think we need more people like you who are willing to question the mainstream and look deeper into the complexities of our climate that have often been ignored in a political debate. It's amazing how rarely real meteorology actually factors into the discussion. For example, how much attention does the IPCC pay to galactic cosmic rays or record high solar activity? Basically none! It's amazing how flawed the state of the science is right now, and that people like Al Gore are taken more seriously than researchers like Ray Spencer, Joe D'Aleo, Ryan Maue etc.

[skierinvermont]

We are in a record high AMO though so that would make the trend in global temperatures higher...even if overall it's been up and down and no trend.

I basically agree with Bethesda's point that we've been +AMO, El Niño dominated (ONI averaged around +.1C for the 2000s), and high solar dominated...which makes it even more incredible we haven't warmed.

Well then you are wrong as well. The PDO has declined dramatically.. which would have produced cooling.

The ONI averaged ZERO for 1998-2010. The trend was ZERO. The 2000s is irrelevant because we actually warmed over that period. Apples to apples.

The AMO has shown no trend since 1998. The response of temperatures to ocean forcings is very fast. When ENSO cools.. global temps respond shortly thereafter. When the AMO fluctuates.. temperatures respond shortly. There also is no detectable correlation of global temperatures so this is a pretty irrelevant factor, unlike the PDO, ONI, and solar.

The effect of the 11- year solar cycle occurs with much less lag than 8 years. See the graph below. There is very little lag. Considering solar peaked around 01-02, it has had a cooling effect on temperatures since about 2003.

[skierinvermont]

He might be using "trend" in the more general sense as in "The AMO is in a warm trend compared to overall climatology." This is a perfectly acceptable use of the term and you don't need a graph to prove it. It's definitely been high lately which has been canceling out some of the cooling influence of the PDO and recent drop in solar activity. I think you should stop nitpicking and just embrace Bethesda's general point as valid even if some of his terminology is a bit confusing. The basic point is we haven't seen as much warming as expected despite the AMO and ENSO supporting it, and that we should see more significant cooling as the AMO declines in the next 10-20 years. You always want to find errors in others' posts instead of looking for the general message and trying to understand it.

I am not as much of a global warming skeptic as you, and I do think you sometimes exaggerate the conspiratorial aspects of AGW, but you've definitely worked hard to understand the natural causes of climate change and to challenge the orthodoxy which is so prevalent. I think we need more people like you who are willing to question the mainstream and look deeper into the complexities of our climate that have often been ignored in a political debate. It's amazing how rarely real meteorology actually factors into the discussion. For example, how much attention does the IPCC pay to galactic cosmic rays or record high solar activity? Basically none! It's amazing how flawed the state of the science is right now, and that people like Al Gore are taken more seriously than researchers like Ray Spencer, Joe D'Aleo, Ryan Maue etc.

Yes we need more people who don't think humans are responsible for the rise of Co2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. LMFAO!!!

His general point is wrong. The AMO has not had a warming effect over the last 12 years. The AMO barely has an effect on global temperatures period. Surface temperatures respodn quickly to ocean forcings, so the earth would have warmed quickly when the AMO went positive in 1996. Since 1998 the trend in the AMO is zero, thus it has had little if any effect on global T.

The PDO averaged negative 1998-2010 and showed a strong negative trend.. it has had a major cooling effect over the last 12 years.

ONI averaged zero 1998-2010 and had a trend of zero. No effect.

Solar peaked in 01-02 and has declined since then. This would have produced a cooling effect since about 2003. See above.

Natural factors have strongly pointed towards cooling over the last 12 years.

[nzucker]

Well then you are wrong as well. The PDO has declined dramatically.. which would have produced cooling.

The ONI averaged ZERO for 1998-2010. The trend was ZERO. The 2000s is irrelevant because we actually warmed over that period. Apples to apples.

The AMO has shown no trend since 1998. The response of temperatures to ocean forcings is very fast. When ENSO cools.. global temps respond shortly thereafter. When the AMO fluctuates.. temperatures respond shortly. There also is no detectable correlation of global temperatures so this is a pretty irrelevant factor, unlike the PDO, ONI, and solar.

The effect of the 11- year solar cycle occurs with much less lag than 8 years. See the graph below. There is very little lag. Considering solar peaked around 01-02, it has had a cooling effect on temperatures since about 2004.

Yes, but the 1980s and 1990s were dominated by El Niños; this decade was still tilted towards El Niño although not nearly as much. We haven't had a Niña-dominated decade like the 1947-1957 period in ages, really since then which was fifty years ago. The PDO causes global cooling through ENSO, so if it happens to take more time to get an ENSO response from the switch to -PDO, then the cooling will take longer to occur. Once again, the -PDO creates cooling by producing more La Niñas, so the effect is dampened until that actually plays out. This uber-strong La Niña, which should be a multi-year event in my opinion, will set the tone for global temperatures in a -PDO phase as the next thirty years will be. Also, you don't erase thirty years dominated by massive El Niños in three years....remember that 1973, 1983, and 1998 were the strongest El Niños ever and they all occurred in the last 40 years. It takes time to undo a pattern which drastically raised ocean temperatures and caused damage to the cryosphere. Not something that happens immediately of course.

You don't need a positive trend to have warming. All you need if constant high values of things like the AMO, ENSO, PDO, CO2, whatever. As long as you maintain a plateau of extremely high values, the Earth will continue to warm due to feedback loops and the lack of the naturally opposing "cool phase." This is true with solar as well, and one of the reasons I scoff at the IPCC's argument of "well solar hasn't increased since 1970, so how could we be warming?" Well, obviously if we are maintaining levels that are a record for the past 10,000 years, we're still going to have warming from that effect, regardless of the trend being neutral. There's just an accumulation of warmth in the system.

Solar minimums take a long time to have effects on the Earth's climate. The Maunder and Dalton were events that lasted 30-50 years. This one just started a couple years ago, so it wouldn't be expected to have a big effect, especially when masked by the 2010 strong El Niño which is a way more powerful force in the short-term.

Yes we need more people who don't think humans are responsible for the rise of Co2 from 280ppm to 400ppm. LMFAO!!!

His general point is wrong. The AMO has not had a warming effect over the last 12 years. The AMO barely has an effect on global temperatures period. Surface temperatures respodn quickly to ocean forcings, so the earth would have warmed quickly when the AMO went positive in 1996. Since 1998 the trend in the AMO is zero, thus it has had little if any effect on global T.

The PDO averaged negative 1998-2010 and showed a strong negative trend.. it has had a major cooling effect over the last 12 years.

ONI averaged zero 1998-2010 and had a trend of zero. No effect.

Solar peaked in 01-02 and has declined since then. This would have produced a cooling effect since about 2004-2005. See above.

Natural factors have strongly pointed towards cooling over the last 12 years.

Natural factors just started pointing towards cooling. We've seen a plateau of global temperatures in the 2000s but we're just getting into a cycle of natural cooling factors, which may or may not outweigh human emissions depending on your viewpoint. The PDO hasn't been a big deal yet because we had a major multi-year El Niño from 2002-2005, which rarely happens in -PDO phases. We also had a strong El Niño in 2010, the strongest since 1998, despite the -PDO. Look at 1947-1957 ENSO values to see why the PDO produces cooling, and then we can talk. We're just starting the real -PDO/strong La Niña phase now. Everything was pointing towards warm from 1977-1998, and solar from 1850 to 2002, so it'll take a while to see what happens when we go in the opposite direction.

I admitted Bethesda was extreme in my previous post, but I do think he raises a ton of good points which haven't been addressed by the mainstream climate community. It's amazing that the IPCC just casts aside the PDO, cosmic rays, etc as irrelevant; these people clearly don't want to study meteorology, as they're driven by a political agenda that is offensive to those of us who study the weather as a passion. Bethesda's arguments are posing the questions that need to be answered. We haven't warmed as much as Hansen 1988, Hansen 1992, or IPCC 2007 have predicted...why not?

[skierinvermont]

Yes, but the 1980s and 1990s were dominated by El Niños; this decade was still tilted towards El Niño although not nearly as much. We haven't had a Niña-dominated decade like the 1947-1957 period in ages, really since then which was fifty years ago. The PDO causes global cooling through ENSO, so if it happens to take more time to get an ENSO response from the switch to -PDO, then the cooling will take longer to occur. Once again, the -PDO creates cooling by producing more La Niñas, so the effect is dampened until that actually plays out. This uber-strong La Niña, which should be a multi-year event in my opinion, will set the tone for global temperatures in a -PDO phase as the next thirty years will be. Also, you don't erase thirty years dominated by massive El Niños in three years....remember that 1973, 1983, and 1998 were the strongest El Niños ever and they all occurred in the last 40 years. It takes time to undo a pattern which drastically raised ocean temperatures and caused damage to the cryosphere. Not something that happens immediately of course.

You don't need a positive trend to have warming. All you need if constant high values of things like the AMO, ENSO, PDO, CO2, whatever. As long as you maintain a plateau of extremely high values, the Earth will continue to warm due to feedback loops and the lack of the naturally opposing "cool phase." This is true with solar as well, and one of the reasons I scoff at the IPCC's argument of "well solar hasn't increased since 1970, so how could we be warming?" Well, obviously if we are maintaining levels that are a record for the past 10,000 years, we're still going to have warming from that effect, regardless of the trend being neutral. There's just an accumulation of warmth in the system.

Solar minimums take a long time to have effects on the Earth's climate. The Maunder and Dalton were events that lasted 30-50 years. This one just started a couple years ago, so it wouldn't be expected to have a big effect, especially when masked by the 2010 strong El Niño which is a way more powerful force in the short-term.

Natural factors just started pointing towards cooling. We've seen a plateau of global temperatures in the 2000s but we're just getting into a cycle of natural cooling factors, which may or may not outweigh human emissions depending on your viewpoint. The PDO hasn't been a big deal yet because we had a major multi-year El Niño from 2002-2005, which rarely happens in -PDO phases. We also had a strong El Niño in 2010, the strongest since 1998, despite the -PDO. Look at 1947-1957 ENSO values to see why the PDO produces cooling, and then we can talk. We're just starting the real -PDO/strong La Niña phase now. Everything was pointing towards warm from 1977-1998, and solar from 1850 to 2002, so it'll take a while to see what happens when we go in the opposite direction.

I admitted Bethesda was extreme in my previous post, but I do think he raises a ton of good points which haven't been addressed by the mainstream climate community. It's amazing that the IPCC just casts aside the PDO, cosmic rays, etc as irrelevant; these people clearly don't want to study meteorology, as they're driven by a political agenda that is offensive to those of us who study the weather as a passion. Bethesda's arguments are posing the questions that need to be answered. We haven't warmed as much as Hansen 1988, Hansen 1992, or IPCC 2007 have predicted...why not?

Cosmic rays are cast aside as largely irrelevant for very good reason. You should do some reading. Start here: http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

If we are talking about temperature trends then it is important to talk about trends in the variables observed (unless there is a demonstrable lag effect or cumulative effect).

The ONI has averaged ZERO and has a trend of ZERO.. to argue that the ONI has caused warming the last 12 years is simply laughable. No we haven't seen 1950s style monster Ninas which would have produced cooling.. but if we had that would have meant COOLING. The neutral conditions and neutral trend argue for net neutral effect over the last 12 years. ENSO detrended temps have the same trend as raw temps.

The effect of solar is largely short term. Maybe there are some small feedbacks that cause a lag time but on a 12 year period these would be largely irrelevant. There is a clear correlation between temperatures and the 11 year solar cycle with little to no lag time with a magnitude of .1-.2C. Since solar peaked in 2001 that argues for a significant cooling effect since then.

The PDO probably does affect global T via indirect ENSO effect. But it also likely influences it directly, in the same way the AMO does except it is much bigger. You have said this before yourself of both the AMO and PDO. Thus the strong negative trend in the PDO and the negative conditions, argue for significant cooling.

So solar and the PDO argue for cooling. The ONI is a neutral factor. And the AMO is a neutral factor and is largely irrelevant anyways since there is not detectable correlation like there is for ONI, PDO, TSI.

It's funny - the skeptics have been predicting cooling for a decade now. It's funny watching the goalposts getting moved back and back.