UHI Revisited

[icefisher]

May 14, 2010 20:07:28 GMT socold said:

Lets go with the MSU slope, even though there's no reason to expect the surface warming trend to match the lower tropospheric warming trend. But what's the MSI trend - 0.8C per decade? That's over 4 times the global rate of warming. That indeed does suggest the north would glow red on any map of trends.

So you are suggesting that we should all ignore all quantitative measures of global warming and just go with NASA's color scheme?

Sounds like a pretty sound suggestion to me.

[hairball]

May 14, 2010 20:33:45 GMT socold said:

Actually the reason why the warming in summer is lower is because the energy is being expended melting the ice rather than raising temperature.

Meaning the higher Winter temperatures are due to more ice formation on the increased open sea which was due to wind and ocean currents. Feel free to insert carbon dioxide into the picture somewhere.

[socold]

Partly, see:
www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-Arctic-amplification.html

"The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean. The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter."

[hairball]

I dunno Socold that seems like a cycle to me:

less ice = more open water = more ice formation = more heat radiated out into space = cooling = more ice formation = less open water = less less heat radiated out into space = warming =

[icefisher]

May 15, 2010 0:25:25 GMT glc said:

TLT rise is still hanging on which tells me there is still more OHC being whisked away into space.....

Ok - so now all this heat gone out into space what level do you expect UAH anomalies to fall to. 1980 levels? 1990 levels?

I don't necessarily think given the normal natural progression of temperatures that we might see 1980 levels for maybe a few hundred more years. Now 1990 temperatures might be a possibility by say 2025 to 2035 figuring a cooling rate of about .06 to .1degC/decade. To get that looking at historical Hadcrut suggests you need something like a Dalton minimum running for 15 to 30 years.

[magellan]

That's odd socold, I couldn't find any Arctic research papers by Polyakov over at SkepticalScience.


Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming

Abstract.

Arctic variability is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations. Incomplete sampling of these fluctuations results in highly variable arctic surface-air temperature (SAT) trends. Modulated by multi-decadal variability, SAT trends are often amplified relative to northern-hemispheric trends, but over the 125-year record we identify periods when arctic SAT trends were smaller or of opposite sign than northern-hemispheric trends. Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends during the 20th century (when multi-decadal variablity had little net effect on computed trends) are similar, and do not support the predicted polar amplication of global warming. The possible moderating
role of sea ice cannot be conclusively identied with existing data. If long-term trends are accepted as a valid measure of climate change, then the SAT and ice data do not support the proposed polar amplification of global warming. Intrinsic arctic variability obscures
long-term changes, limiting our ability to identify complex feedbacks in the arctic climate system.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability

Abstract.

Atmospheric and oceanic variability in the Arctic shows the existence of several oscillatory modes. The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60-80 years, dominate. Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s
may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection
of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000

Arctic atmospheric variability during the industrial era (1875–2000) is assessed using spatially averaged surface air temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) records. Air temperature and pressure display strong multidecadal variability on timescales of 50–80 yr [termed low-frequency oscillation (LFO)]. Associated with this variability, the Arctic SAT record shows two maxima: in the 1930s–40s and in recent decades, with two colder periods in between. In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was
higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s. Incomplete sampling of large-amplitude multidecadal fluctuations results in oscillatory Arctic SAT trends. For example, the Arctic SAT trend since 1875 is 0.09 6 0.038C decade21, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming; during the twentieth century (when positive and negative phases of the LFO nearly offset each other) the Arctic temperature increase is 0.05 6 0.048C decade21, similar to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.068C decade21). Thus, the large-amplitude multidecadal climate variability impacting the maritime Arctic may confound the detection of the true underlying climate trend over the past century. LFO-modulated trends for short records are not indicative of the long-term behavior of the Arctic climate system. The accelerated warming and a shift of the atmospheric pressure pattern
from anticyclonic to cyclonic in recent decades can be attributed to a positive LFO phase. It is speculated that this LFO-driven shift was crucial to the recent reduction in Arctic ice cover. Joint examination of air temperature and pressure records suggests that peaks in temperature associated with the LFO follow pressure minima after
5–15 yr. Elucidating the mechanisms behind this relationship will be critical to understanding the complex nature of low-frequency variability.

----------------------------------------------------------

Getting the picture? Lots more where that came from. In previous years, researchers were saying the Arctic was in a warm phase. What do they say in 2010?

soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/2-1-observations-arctic-change/pdf/2-1-4-polykov-igor.pdf

Recent observations suggest that the eastern Arctic Ocean is in transition towards a cooler state.

Now where is all that empirical "proof" that CO2 is responsible for Arctic ice/temperature changes?

[socold]

www.springerlink.com/content/hr228271x3pw5083/
March 2006
"Abstract Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification. Disparity is greatly reduced, however, if one compares observed trajectories to near-future simulations (2010–2029), rather than to the doubled-CO2 or late 21st century conditions that are typically cited. These near-future simulations document a preconditioning phase of Arctic amplification, characterized by the initial retreat and thinning of sea ice, with imprints of low-frequency variability. Observations show these same basic features, but with SATs over the Arctic Ocean still largely constrained by the insulating effects of the ice cover and thermal inertia of the upper ocean. Given the general consistency with model projections, we are likely near the threshold when absorption of solar radiation during summer limits ice growth the following autumn and winter, initiating a feedback leading to a substantial increase in Arctic Ocean SATs."

Also note that the paper discussed in skepticalscience (WUWT did a hack job on the same paper) was published in 2010. So those findings were not available to previous studies. It identifies the cause of polar amplification is the at the surface and therefore concludes that it is a result of retreating snow and ice.

[nautonnier]

That is a most telling exchange of views which I think sums up the entire debate.

Magellan posts several references based on observational science

" over the 125-year record we identify periods"

"Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s"

"Arctic atmospheric variability during the industrial era (1875–2000) is assessed using spatially averaged surface air temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) records. Air temperature and pressure display strong multidecadal variability on timescales of 50–80 yr [termed low-frequency oscillation (LFO)]. Associated with this variability, the Arctic SAT record shows two maxima: in the 1930s–40s and in recent decades, "




SoCold's refutation of these observations is:

" These near-future simulations document a preconditioning phase of Arctic amplification, characterized by the initial retreat and thinning of sea ice, with imprints of low-frequency variability. Observations show these same basic features, but with SATs over the Arctic Ocean still largely constrained by the insulating effects of the ice cover and thermal inertia of the upper ocean. Given the general consistency with model projections, we are likely near the threshold when absorption of solar radiation during summer limits ice growth the following autumn and winter, initiating a feedback leading to a substantial increase in Arctic Ocean SATs"

Short term simulations and model projections

So the initial correlation of the results of a short term model is given precedence over observation over more than a century.


Most telling.

[goldbuster1]

socold have no proof of CO2 involvement, he cant comprehend the difference between volcanic and man-made CO2, he cant even understand fraction and percentage. Imagine trying to explain to him magnetism and molecular proprieties...

socold why are you so obsess with CO2? Did you lack oxygen when you're born?

[socold]

nautonnier I don't think you understand what I posted (you also curiously chopped off your quote just before the sentence "Observations show these same basic features".

It's saying that the arctic amplification expected from models over the longterm is not the same as expected over the shortterm. It looks at the shortterm observations and notes they are compatible with model expectations. It says that amplification will become more apparent as arctic snow and ice recedes.

[magellan]

May 15, 2010 14:43:16 GMT socold said:

nautonnier I don't think you understand what I posted (you also curiously chopped off your quote just before the sentence "Observations show these same basic features".

It's saying that the arctic amplification expected from models over the longterm is not the same as expected over the shortterm. It looks at the shortterm observations and notes they are compatible with model expectations. It says that amplification will become more apparent as arctic snow and ice recedes.

So 100 years into the future using model simulations is preferred over 100 years of observational data? Is that what you're saying socold?

Show us the model that predicted 2007, the year warmologists said it was worse than we thought.

[icefisher]

May 15, 2010 14:43:16 GMT socold said:

nautonnier I don't think you understand what I posted (you also curiously chopped off your quote just before the sentence "Observations show these same basic features".

It's saying that the arctic amplification expected from models over the longterm is not the same as expected over the shortterm. It looks at the shortterm observations and notes they are compatible with model expectations. It says that amplification will become more apparent as arctic snow and ice recedes.

That is the typical excuse making of the modelers for non performance of their models. Yep sometime in the future they will come into line so please keep sending me money so I can fine tune how much worse it will get once I figure out how to smooth out the bumps.

Its always expected to get cold before it gets warm. LOL! Thats how the natural world works!

So far the models have gotten nothing longterm right. The only thing on the increase is inane statements like the above.

Bottom line is there is an underlying steady .5degC warming that has probably been going on for 300 years.

The CO2 alarmists want to coopt that as warming attributable to CO2 (thus the faking of the hockeystick). However, as the fake science has been uncovered, that underlying warming is being established as either natural or a non-threatening effect of the industrial revolution.

If it is natural we need to understand how it works. If in the unlikely event it has been CO2 causing that gentle underlying warming. Then what is there anything to be alarmed about?

Its been steadily warming for a century with oscillations likely caused by ocean current shifts.

It is only logical to suggest CO2 warming has sunk to the bottom of the ocean because this is at least the third time it has happened in the past century resulting not in a 1.5degC/century warming but a far lower warming slope, perhaps as low a .5degC/century slope that shows very little sign of accelerating (despite Socold producing graphs with cherry picked starting points late in the 20th Century so he can fit an accelerating curve to it)

So considering that warming is not accelerating to any great degree which seems now well established, the question remains is it a product of the industrial revolution or is it one of those sawtoothed shaped warming/cooling that shows up in every icecore record where the climate shifts but a couple of degrees or so every 400 years or so throughout the Halocene. Or that we see in written history accounts of the past couple of thousand years resulting in the Roman Optimum, the MWP, and the LIA.

Exaggerations of warming were seen as proof of the CO2 theory as only if they can jump past precedence can you say you have something unique to be concerned about. Now that Mother Nature is putting a major kabosh on that theory the warmists are reduced to talking about missing heat and hope upon hope that the next El Nino will bring record warming.

But the facts are just about in. If warming was not accelerating fast in the past century its not likely it will be accelerating faster in the next century as Peak Oil, high prices, and economics plays its role.

Most nations probably see that and desperately want somebody to give them some welfare for diminishing opportunity. What they don't realize is opportunity is everywhere and known opportunity is always diminishing. That is about as close as you can come to an immutable economic law.

Politics is not the answer. Never has been and never will be. Politics the more it is used the less opportunity there will be for everybody.

The reason there is no current obvious concern about AGW is the fact that there is no important visible acceleration in warming during a century where CO2 emissions accelerated faster than they will be capable of doing in centuries to come.

Namely if it takes an accelerating emission curve to produce a flat or nearly flat warming curve, then a flat increasing emission curve will likely produce a diminishing warming curve meaning less than .5Cdeg/century warming.

These all above represent the important curves to be looking at and the warmists refuse to produce them in an analytical way proving their objectives really aren't what they say they are.

Instead the case is paraded out by the IPCC in a carefully crafted display designed to highlight what they want to highlight and hide information that calls into question the science upon which they are relying. That is what Climategate proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Its known as a scientific analysis with blinders on with the focus not on finding answers or truly analyzing the facts but instead its all about producing political outcomes.

[scpg02]

May 15, 2010 19:49:42 GMT icefisher said:

Politics is not the answer. Never has been and never will be. Politics the more it is used the less opportunity there will be for everybody.

But it is the cause. AGW and CO2 were never about saving the planet. It was always about greater control over energy markets. Keeping markets tight keeps prices and profits high.

[socold]

May 15, 2010 18:27:43 GMT magellan said:

May 15, 2010 14:43:16 GMT socold said:

nautonnier I don't think you understand what I posted (you also curiously chopped off your quote just before the sentence "Observations show these same basic features".

It's saying that the arctic amplification expected from models over the longterm is not the same as expected over the shortterm. It looks at the shortterm observations and notes they are compatible with model expectations. It says that amplification will become more apparent as arctic snow and ice recedes.

So 100 years into the future using model simulations is preferred over 100 years of observational data? Is that what you're saying socold?

No I am saying you can't cite the lack of conditions predicted for 2100 as an argument that those predictions don't match observations.

[socold]

May 15, 2010 19:49:42 GMT icefisher said:

That is the typical excuse making of the modelers for non performance of their models. Yep sometime in the future they will come into line so please keep sending me money so I can fine tune how much worse it will get once I figure out how to smooth out the bumps.

Arctic amplification is a prediction of the models, but that amplification is most apparent at say 2100. What you are all essentially citing observations, announcing they don't match the model expectation for 2100, without looking at what the models show, and then concluding the models are wrong.

Realclimate has an article about Polar Amplification that clears up this misunderstanding:

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/

It is well established that climate models exhibit Arctic amplification of future climate change (see Fig 3). In addition, averaging over numerous hindcasts from a single model started with differing initial conditions (known as an ensemble average) yields significant Arctic amplification in simulations of the last century. However, single realizations with a climate model do not universally show Arctic amplification in the past [Bitz and Goosse, in prep]. Thus models and observations alike show uncertainty in Arctic amplification in the last century. Nonetheless Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability.

So far the models have gotten nothing longterm right.

Except for the warming on land, oceans and troposphere. And sea level rise. And the rise in atmospehric humidity. The decrease in sea ice. Stratospheric cooling. They have got a lot right. It could be by chance of course, but to claim that they haven't got anything right is...well just wrong.

It is only logical to suggest CO2 warming has sunk to the bottom of the ocean because this is at least the third time it has happened in the past century resulting not in a 1.5degC/century warming but a far lower warming slope, perhaps as low a .5degC/century slope that shows very little sign of accelerating (despite Socold producing graphs with cherry picked starting points late in the 20th Century so he can fit an accelerating curve to it)

It's highly illogical to assume a linear trend with an oscillation when the forcings of climate have not remained constant. For example greenhouse gases have increased significantly in the past 50 years (not uniformally over the past 300) and solar activity has not had a linear trend over the past century.

As for the claim I cherrypiced a start point - the fact is that I removed ENSO and solar influence and found what was left was consistent with an accelerating trend, continuing into 2010. It directly contradicts the claim that the warming trend since 1970 peaked in say 1998 or 2002.

So considering that warming is not accelerating to any great degree which seems now well established

Have you looked at the satellite records recently? Also there's the sea surface temperature:


bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/april-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html

My conclusion is that there is no evidence the warming has stopped. What we are seeing is consistent with ongoing warming. Just trace a line through the above graph crossing midway through the various El Ninos and La Ninas and remember that the end of the graph is biased lower by a deep solar minimum. I suspect in 20 years time we may look at the global temperature record period 1970-2030 and laugh at the "PDO switch, deep solar minimum, cooling scare" skeptics were pushing circa 2008.

Namely if it takes an accelerating emission curve to produce a flat or nearly flat warming curve, then a flat increasing emission curve will likely produce a diminishing warming curve meaning less than .5Cdeg/century warming.

These all above represent the important curves to be looking at and the warmists refuse to produce them in an analytical way proving their objectives really aren't what they say they are.

Read the IPCC report, and the papers it references. You'll find emissions curves and respective greenhouse gas concentrations and respective warming.