2011 Global Temperatures

[skierinvermont]

Yet just about all their models show hardly a flinch in global temps (and their forecasts)...pretty much straight up, even in the short term of 1 or 2 decades.

Fine.. make an argument that their simulations of the PDO are incorrect for whatever reason. But let's not pretend that they don't know what the PDO is or try to simulate it.

[ORH_wxman]

The other variables directly correlate to TSI so whether the actual causation is TSI or something else, it doesn't matter for determining the lag from the cycle to temperature. I could have even done a graph of sunspots vs temp even though sunspots are only proxies for the actual mechanisms. Wouldn't make a difference. There is no lag. I know you all will just disagree with whatever I say so ask Will since he is like god around here.

As he just said the longest he's seen is 3 and the majority are 1-2 year lag.

Again I am speaking solely of the INTRA-cycle effect that we can expect from this cycle so please don't change the topic to inter-cycle changes.

You've developed quite the attitude issue recently in the past several months. Not sure what it is, but its generally not a good way to go around in any endeavor including a debate.

You seemed like a nice kid when I met you at the GTG in August.

[skierinvermont]

This has nothing to do with Tacomans quote. "as recently as 2009, members of the IPCC did not know what the PDO was".

FYI, they also didn't know how much of Europe is below sea level , or the 35yr himalayan glacier....amazongate.......picking things out of magazines and using it as proof.

And, the common public is pointing this out.

If we're just talking about "members" this doesn't surprise me in the slightest since there are 1000s of authors some of which are economists, agronomists, engineers etc.

[BethesdaWX]

Well then the other variables must actually cause warming since global temperatures are lowest at the solar minimum.

Global temperatures are lowest at the solar minimum. We are at the minimum. End of story.

Do you even know what you're saying? "Lag time" will be effected, you are incorrect in saying "there is no lag".

Intra-Cycle cooling is very Minimal, and would not manifest to the "naked data" with any significance.

[skierinvermont]

You've developed quite the attitude issue recently in the past several months. Not sure what it is, but its generally not a good way to go around in any endeavor including a debate.

You seemed like a nice kid when I met you at the GTG in August.

It's nothing against you Will but it is true. You state something to be fact around here and people listen.

The attitude largely comes from the number of times I've been called a ****sucker, mr. homo, stupid, need a cat scan etc. Pretty fed up with it. If people would like to make this a civil place, I'm all for it. When people are willing to have reasonable, civil, objective conversations as tacoman and I had yesterday that is wonderful.

[ORH_wxman]

Fine.. make an argument that their simulations of the PDO are incorrect for whatever reason. But let's not pretend that they don't know what the PDO is or try to simulate it.

Tacoman's argument was that their were some members, including pretty prominent climate scientists, that seemed pretty oblivious to things like the PDO. I'll see if I can find the link to it, it was a couple years ago IIRC. Obviously the entire IPCC wouldn't be completely clueless as to its existence otherwise they would probably have to be disbanded immediately out of shear ignorance.However, they have shown very little ability to take it seriously as a force in global temperatures. Perhaps they will talk about it more over the next decade when they look more and more foolish (IMHO).

[tacoman25]

To answer this question you have to think of the mechanisms involved. The primary mechanism is TSI. The fluctuations in TSI are large enough to explain both the observed intra and inter-cycle changes in temperature.

Incoming SW radiation drops, this produces a fairly immediate response at the surface. Unless incoming SW radiation continues to drop, the surface temperature will stabilize at the new equilibrium.

This doesn't seem to jive with a 2-3 year lag, though.

[tacoman25]

The IPCC 2007 report dedicates a whole section to the PDO and the ability of climate models to simulate it.

They also dedicate whole sections to the NAM, SAM, AMO, ocean salinity and temperature structure etc...

Recent work suggests that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, see Chapters 3 and 9) is the North Pacific expression of a near-global ENSO-like pattern of variability called the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO (Power et al., 1999; Deser et al., 2004). The appearance of the IPO as the leading Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) of SST in AOGCMs that do not include inter-decadal variability in natural or external forcing indicates that the IPO is an internally generated, natural form of variability.

...

Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models do not seem to have difficulty in simulating IPO-like variability (e.g., Yeh and Kirtman, 2004; Meehl and Hu, 2006), even AOGCMs that are too coarse to properly resolve equatorially trapped waves important for ENSO dynamics.

I'm not saying the whole IPCC was ignorant of the PDO, but some interviewed members were.

[salbers]

Regarding Tacoman (2 posts up), the 2-3 year lag (or 1-2) makes sense in the context of a cyclical change in TSI related forcing. If it drops and stays constant (just a thought experiment) it would come to equlibrium.

[skierinvermont]

This doesn't seem to jive with a 2-3 year lag, though.

It probably takes a little time to reach the new equilibrium, also it's usually cited as 1-2 years.

One thing I am still a little unclear on is how the surface cools even though the earth is still accumulating heat at .9W/m2. My guess is that when the earth's energy imbalance (which is due to the oceans warming slowly and causing a lag to the CO2 radiative forcing) decreases from .9W/m2 to .8W/m2 during a solar minimum, the cold oceans exert more cooling on the land.

Perhaps Rusty could elaborate more on this.

[tacoman25]

Regarding Tacoman (2 posts up), the 2-3 year lag (or 1-2) makes sense in the context of a cyclical change in TSI related forcing. If it drops and stays constant (just a thought experiment) it would come to equlibrium.

If that is the case, the maximum amount of cooling that could be seen in an extended solar minimum like a Dalton or Maunder would just the small amount that is seen during any typical intra-cycle minimum. The number that I have seen quoted the most is .1C. However, those periods almost certainly saw drops much greater than that.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

[BethesdaWX]

It probably takes a little time to reach the new equilibrium, also it's usually cited as 1-2 years.

One thing I am still a little unclear on is how the surface cools even though the earth is still accumulating heat at .9W/m2. My guess is that when the earth's energy imbalance (which is due to the oceans warming slowly and causing a lag to the CO2 radiative forcing) decreases from .9W/m2 to .8W/m2 during a solar minimum, the cold oceans exert more cooling on the land.

Perhaps Rusty could elaborate more on this.

Its not CO2

Its the Sun......using solar trends for correlations....Solar has leveled off since 2002....what has the warming done since 2002?.....OHC has leveled off, Global Temps have leveled off...everything has leveled off. We start asking the "missing heat" question...we cannot figure out where its going. IT WAS NEVER THERE.

Our data measurement methods were not as adequate 15 years ago to detect such changes during the previous solar min. Intracycle cooling is minimal.... difference is, we are in a time when solar activiy should be starting to increase rapidly. But once we get into the timeof the soalr max....a WEAK solar Max...remove that energy, and significant cooling will result.

1) The Solar Formula we use in our models is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

2) Again...radiative properties of CO2 is not the point here. The point is, our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...I never said it wouldn't repsond.......we don't know where all the enrgy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is WRONG. Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

3) The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

4) The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

5) Ifwe miss just 1 variable, it throws the ENTIRE atmospheric chain of processes off the wire! Its silly to use models as proof based on the properties of Co2 itself. You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GRC, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? A trace gas may be a complete non-factor. My point was more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere. CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

[skierinvermont]

If that is the case, the maximum amount of cooling that could be seen in an extended solar minimum like a Dalton or Maunder would just the small amount that is seen during any typical intra-cycle minimum. The number that I have seen quoted the most is .1C. However, those periods almost certainly saw drops much greater than that.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Over long periods you would also have albedo feedback plus some additional small ocean lag

[salbers]

Here's some info on using other stars to try to infer the Maunder minimum and such. Maybe more of a change on these long cycles?

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/483/1/523/34734.text.html

[salbers]

Its not CO2

Its the Sun......using SOLAR trends for correlations....Solar has leveled off since 2002....what has the warming done since 2002?.....OHC has leveled off, Global Temps have leveled off...everything has leveled off. We start asking the "missing heat" question...we cannot figure out where its going. IT WAS NEVER THERE.

Our data measurement methods were not as adequate 15 years ago to detect such changes during the previous solar min. Intracycle cooling is minimal.... difference is, we are in a time when solar activiy should be increasing rapidly. But once we get into the timeof the soalr max....a WEAK solar Max...remove that energy, and significant cooling will result.

1) The Solar Formula we use in our models is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

2) Again...radiative properties of CO2 is not the point here. The point is, our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...I never said it wouldn't repsond.......we don't know where all the enrgy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is WRONG. Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

3) The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

4) The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

5) Ifwe miss just 1 variable, it throws the ENTIRE atmospheric chain of processes off the wire! Its silly to use models as proof based on the properties of Co2 itself. You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GRC, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? A trace gas may be a complete non-factor. My point was more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere. CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

The 0.38% figure is devoid of context - what matters is the 1.2C per doubling - before feedbacks.

Again, anthropogenic GHG's are a new factor that should be added in to today's situation.

[BethesdaWX]

The 0.38% figure is devoid of context - what matters is the 1.2C per doubling - before feedbacks.

Again, anthropogenic GHG's are a new factor that should be added in to today's situation.

I explained that in the rest of my post....

Our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...we don't know where all the energy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is wrong.

Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GCR, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? Our formulas on our "energy budget" are based on all of these factors combined....one screw up, and there goes the AGW theory. We barely even how our own GHE works, let alone GCR, GCC...etc. Its not simple sh*t.

The Solar Formula we use in our models is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

[salbers]

Makes sense that solar was a factor in the MWP and maybe contributed 1/3rd of the 20th century warming. The rest is GHGs as the temp is now spiking above the MWP. Plus that radiative forcing has to do something - as sure as the sun rises and it gets warmer in the morning.

It is getting warmer in the past few decades despite level or decreasing solar activity. GHGs are a better fit for this than any leftover lag from the solar ramp up earlier.

[BethesdaWX]

Makes sense that solar was a factor in the MWP and maybe contributed 1/3rd of the 20th century warming. The rest is GHGs as the temp is now spiking above the MWP.

wtf? Both Maxes were the same, temps were as high or higher in the MWP...why would one max cause all the warming and the other cause 1/3?

You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GCR, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? Our formulas on our "energy budget" are based on all of these factors combined....one screw up, and there goes the AGW theory. We barely even how our own GHE works, let alone GCR, GCC...etc. Its not simple sh*t.

The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

[BethesdaWX]

Makes sense that solar was a factor in the MWP and maybe contributed 1/3rd of the 20th century warming. The rest is GHGs as the temp is now spiking above the MWP. Plus that radiative forcing has to do something - as sure as the sun rises and it gets warmer in the morning.

It is getting warmer in the past few decades despite level or decreasing solar activity. GHGs are a better fit for this than any leftover lag from the solar ramp up earlier.

Say Wha?

Temps have leveled off, so has OHC. So has Solar....GHG have continued to increase.

[salbers]

wtf? Both Maxes were the same, temps were as higher or higher then...why would one max cause all the warming and the other cause 1/3?

I guess I disagree with your premise in that temps are actually higher now. Otherwise, we wouldn't be poised to launch into record high sea levels in a few decades.

[BethesdaWX]

I guess I disagree with your premise in that temps are actually higher now. Otherwise, we wouldn't be poised to launch into record high sea levels in a few decades.

huh? You cannot compare proxy sea levels with measurement sea levels...measurements in the MWP would have revealed very high spikes.

Either way, our modern maximum is not only HIGHER....but it also has a HIGHER SPIKE...(aka, solar mins in the 1700's/1800's to historic maximums in 1900-2000)

The Fact that TSI has leveled off the past 30 years does not matter when the +PDO/+AMO and warming overall mode with El Nino dominance continued to warm temperatures...ok?

[tacoman25]

Over long periods you would also have albedo feedback plus some additional small ocean lag

It's also ok to say: "We don't really know".

[tacoman25]

Here's some info on using other stars to try to infer the Maunder minimum and such. Maybe more of a change on these long cycles?

http://iopscience.io...34734.text.html

Thanks.

[salbers]

Say Wha?

Temps have leveled off, so has OHC. So has Solar....GHG have continued to increase.

Hard to say OHC is leveling off when sea levels are still rising (the component from thermal expansion).

I've yet to hear a good refutation on why radiative forcing shouldn't show up with a temperature response (1.2 deg C per CO2 doubling - plus feedbacks). We know in the real world (outside of your fabled laboratory), temperature are always changing in response to such forcing, diurnally, seasonally, and on longer time scales.

[BethesdaWX]

Hard to say OHC is leveling off when sea levels are still rising (the component from thermal expansion).

Measured OHC has slowed almost to a flat line since 2002-03.

Now can you respond to the rest of my post(s)?

[salbers]

Measured OHC has slowed almost to a flat line since 2002-03.

Now can you respond to the rest of my post(s)?

I have enough in questionable assertions to address right here. How can sea level rise without it getting warmer in the oceans, unless ice melt is going like crazy.

[BethesdaWX]

Hard to say OHC is leveling off when sea levels are still rising (the component from thermal expansion).

I've yet to hear a good refutation on why radiative forcing shouldn't show up with a temperature response (1.2 deg C per CO2 doubling - plus feedbacks). We know in the real world (outside of your fabled laboratory), temperature are always changing in response to such forcing, diurnally, seasonally, and on longer time scales.

What don't you understand about this post? Our theories are wrong.

1) The Solar Formula we use in our models is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

2) You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GCR, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? Our formulas on our "energy budget" are based on all of these factors combined....one screw up, and there goes the AGW theory. We barely even how our own GHE works, let alone GCR, GCC...etc. Its not simple sh*t. Again...radiative properties of CO2 is not the point here. The point is, our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...I never said it wouldn't repsond.......we don't know where all the enrgy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is WRONG. Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

3) The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

4) The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

5) Ifwe miss just 1 variable, it throws the ENTIRE atmospheric chain of processes off the wire! Its silly to use models as proof based on the properties of Co2 itself. You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GRC, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? A trace gas may be a complete non-factor. My point was more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere. CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

[salbers]

For starters, why is 0.38% a comment on insignificance? The radiative forcing from doublings of this ARE significant. Simply trying to argue that small percentages imply small effect is a huge fallacy. Most of your other comments have been entertained elsewhere in this forum.

What, again, is your number on response to CO2 doubling? Adjectives are too imprecise here.

[BethesdaWX]

I have enough in questionable assertions to address right here. How can sea level rise without it getting warmer in the oceans, unless ice melt is going like crazy.

Argo data

[BethesdaWX]

For starters, why is 0.38% a comment on insignificance? The radiative forcing from doublings of this ARE significant. Simply trying to argue that small percentages imply small effect is a huge fallacy. Most of your other comments have been entertained elsewhere in this forum.

What, again, is your number on response to CO2 doubling? Adjectives are too imprecise here.

??? I said 0.038% is a small portion of the atmosphere. Either way,you completely skip over everything...its annoying.