Global warming temperature predictions

[sigurdur]

socold:
La Nina: 20th Century: 1904-1905 1909-1910 1910-1911 1915-1916 1917-1918 1924-1925 1928-1929 1938-1939 1950-1951 1954-1956 1956-1957 1964-1965 1970-1971 1971-1972 1973-1974 1975-1976 1984-1985 1988-1989 1995-1996 March 1998-early 2000

sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events

The La Ninas of the early 20th century show that they have virtually no effect on trends.

Remember we had a rapid rise in temperatures during the early to mid 20th century. In fact, a more rapid rise than the last rise.

So, the La Nina tail doesn't wag.

As far as solar cycles, there is no good correlation with cycles and temperatures on a short term time scale. So that tail doesn't wag either.

So, there has been no "mask" as some like to think.

[socold]

La Ninas lower global surface temperature and El Ninos raise it. So any period starting with an El Nino and ending with a La Nina will have a cooling effect on global temperature. Here's an extreme example:
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2001/trend

That's a drop in surface temperature of 0.18C per year over the three year period 1998-2001. That large cooling trend is due to the transition from El Nino to La Nina. It's caused by ENSO and it's so large it masks everything else.

If ENSO can cause a 0.18C/year masking over 3 years why do you find it implausible that it could cause a 0.02C/year masking over 10 years?

For the solar cycle, this paper finds the solar cycle has a 0.2C cyclic impact on surface temperature:
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml

I find your certainty that there has been no mask very odd. You are ruling out any cooling effect from the recent solar minimum on global temperature.

[sigurdur]

Socold:
Show me the solar cycles in the early 20th century warming.

Why didn't they provide a mask then? And now all of a sudden do???????

woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1915/to:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1915/to:1945/trend

[sigurdur]

The reason the cycles are not that important is that the intensity just doesn't vary by much as new research confirms.

Note: I am not discrediting the IPCC AR4 as they used what they had at the time, even tho new research showed them wrong. Slow to change they are....but then they need the TSI to vary a lot to make the models work. Otherwise, back to the drawing board.

bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/

[sigurdur]

Socold:
I took the paper showing masking at face value till I studied the underlying assumptions that brought them to the conclusion that there was a "masking".

I will flat out state that that paper is total and absolute crap. Once again, I was very disappointed. I guess ya think I would be used to being disappointed anymore.

[sigurdur]

Socold:
An old adage:
"You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear".

The AGW folks are trying to figure out how to do this......and it isn't going to happen.

[socold]

This is about the 11-year cycle, not the overall 20th century trend in solar output.

Solar output is higher during solar maximum and lower during solar minimum. This is measured by satellites.

The camp and tung paper finds the shift from solar maximum to solar minimum induces 0.2C cooling on the surface temperature record. That implies that the Sun has had a roughly 0.2C cooling effect on global surface temperature since 2002.

That would have masked any warming.

Add in the ENSO cooling since 2002 too and that masks even more.

Potentially the world could have warmed 0.25C since 2002 but the solar minimum and ENSO have cause about the same amount of cooling. 0.25C warming - 0.25C cooling = 0C trend: as observed.

Therefore a 0C trend since 2002 doesn't mean global warming has stopped. Not unless you assume ENSO and the solar cycle cooling is zero.

[trbixler]

Maybe a 30 year or more masking.



wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/15/solar-update-march-2012/

Then the details.

"The authors have found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes by 0.21°C per year of solar cycle length. The biggest response found in the temperature series they examined was Svalbard at 1.09°C per year of solar cycle length. The authors also credit me with the discovery of a new branch of science. On page 6 they state.” Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used.” I have decided to name this new branch of science “solarclimatology”. It is similar to Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology but much more readily quantifiable.

What we use solarclimatology for is to predict future climate. Professor Solheim and his co-authors have done that for Solar Cycle 24 which takes us out to 2026. Using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can go beyond that to about 2040: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/

The green corona emissions point to Solar Cycle 24 being 17 years long, and thus 4.5 years longer than Solar Cycle 23. Using the relationship found by Solheim and his co-authors, that means that the 0.63°C decline for the Northern Hemisphere over Solar Cycle 24 will be followed by a further 0.95°C over Solar Cycle 25. That is graphically indicated thusly, using Figure 19 from the Solheim et al paper:"

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/quantifying-the-solar-cycle-24-temperature-decline/

[socold]

"On page 6 they state.” Archibald (2008) was the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle, if the raw (unsmoothed) value for the SCL is used.” I have decided to name this new branch of science “solarclimatology”."

hahaahaha for real?

[icefisher]

So any period starting with an El Nino and ending with a La Nina will have a cooling effect on global temperature.

Huh? Another infamous Socold sweeping generalization that is completely untrue.

You can fool yourself that random values for ENSO and solar can mask AGW when in fact all you are doing is adjusting those values to create or match the AGW you imagine.

[socold]

Mar 25, 2012 0:10:01 GMT icefisher said:

So any period starting with an El Nino and ending with a La Nina will have a cooling effect on global temperature.

Huh? Another infamous Socold sweeping generalization that is completely untrue.

It's not untrue, you just didn't read it properly. Try again.

[socold]

Mar 25, 2012 0:10:01 GMT icefisher said:

You can fool yourself that random values for ENSO and solar can mask AGW

They aren't random.

The period 2002-2007 was dominated by El Ninos. The period 2007-2012 was dominated by La Ninas.

Can you really not grasp the reasoning for that being a cooling influence over the period 2002-2012?

In 2002 we were near the maximum of solar cycle 23. Solar output dropped significantly into one of the deepest and longest solar cycles in living memory.

Can you not grasp the reasoning for that being a cooling influence either?

I am just reasonably accepting that both ENSO and the solar cycle have had a cooling influence since 2002. You are not only denying that, you are denying the very possibility.

If there is a cooling influence there then it works as a mask.

[icefisher]

The period 2002-2007 was dominated by El Ninos. The period 2007-2012 was dominated by La Ninas.

The question is the reason for the change in dominance over our climate obviously. And just as obviously its not CO2 doing it.

In 2002 we were near the maximum of solar cycle 23. Solar output dropped significantly into one of the deepest and longest solar cycles in living memory.


And in 2012 we are near the maximum for cycle 24! So I don't get the message! 2006 to 2008 solar minimum was in the middle of the period.

You are just howling into the wind Socold. Lets wait and see what the next 5 or 6 years bring. The failure of climate models to capture historic variance, the fact that historic variance has been as big as the modern warming; there is absolutely no evidence that CO2 does anything to the climate. I knew it was nothing but a theory yet to be tested when I read the AR3 attribution chapter. Obviously the science is not ready and Roger Revelle was right about that in his last paper.

If there is a cooling influence there then it works as a mask.

I don't know about that Socold. Do you wear a mask everytime you make a withdrawal from the bank?

[socold]

Solar activity has gone down since 2002. The recent upturn hardly makes up for it. The period 2002-2012 is one where the output of the Sun has markedly decreased.

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1990

Okay lets wait and see. It won't take 5 or 6 years it should be obvious in the next 2

[ant42]

Poor old socold, waiting for an el nino to bump temps up. Unfortunately, neutral ENSO is going to be as good as you can hope for before we go back to double dip La Nina.

BTW socold how is Scenario C looking? As i understand it, Co2 over rides all other forcings.

So keep moving the goal posts, until its all over.