*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[socold]

Back to 1900 with GHG forcing and aerosol forcing from GISS:

[icefisher]

Jul 1, 2010 20:16:31 GMT socold said:

Back to 1900 with GHG forcing and aerosol forcing from GISS:

The solar/amo+sst ENSO we know fluctuate in tune with global temperatures (in fact much of it is used to figure the temperatures themselves thus begs the question at hand here)

In fact the AMO is detrended and thus as you can see in your chart it doesn't contribute to the match with the alleged warming trend but instead provides the wiggle match along the line. Its kind of like saying it wiggles because it wiggles. The only information being conveyed here is Yes indeedy the oceans cause fluctuations in temperatures and they indeed cause deep fluctuations that last decades but it doesn't provide any information about oceans contributing to trends on centennial scales because. . . . uh. . . . that was all removed and needed to be because otherwise you would have essentially replicated Hadcrut for most intents and purposes and wouldn't need much of anything else. . . .like GHG.

The solar is just in there as window dressing. Have to factor it down by a factor of 100 to 400 to ensure it acts like window dressing and doesn't call for even larger aerosols to compensate.

Then we get to the aerosols they are essentially a plug figure to force the match as they are just a guess and they provide the only significant adjustment to the GHG trendline to make it fit the Hadcrut line.

So its a clever reconstruction. But you must have gotten it elsewhere as you apparently failed to comprehend its cleverness.

[socold]

AMO, PDO and ENSO show no longterm trend. I haven't removed any trend - the trend wasn't there to begin with.

I could scale AMO and ENSO up even higher, but then the 1998 El Nino would shoot off the top of your browser. The scaling I have used is roughly the best fit to the peaks of El Ninos and La Ninas. That it doesn't show a great longterm multi-decadal trend is just a fact of the data.

The solar is not merely window dressing, without the solar cycle the agreement is much worse. There is a ~11 year cycle in the data once you remove ENSO.

Here's the 1970 reconstruction without solar cycle. Note the discrepancy between HadCRUT3 and the reconstruction roughly every 11 years when the solar cycle is in maximum:


Here's the same graph with the solar cycle included. The discrepancies disappear:


Again this is just something the data exhibit. I haven't made the data fit better through including a weak 0.15C peak-trough effect from the solar cycle, it just does.

In recent years we've been in downslope of a solar cycle, and ENSO trend has been negative. The point behind these graphs is to graphically show that the recent "flatness" in temperature since 2003 is entirely consistent with global warming continuing.

[icefisher]

You reverted to the sort term chart.

I never said you removed the AMO trend. I said the AMO is a temperature detrended dataset thus all it can do is help with wiggle matching. If it isn't detrended then it ends up being an explanation for warming.

It is good you are now recognizing ocean SST oscillations that affect global temperatures.

It would be nice to understand how you constructed a combined AMO and SST ENSO index also and a rationale for that. I just don't know what to make of it.

And finally I get it solar has an effect.

But removing it and showing the effect doesn't show me what it looks like if you optimize the solar factor to produce the best fit in your century long graph where you have a particularly bad fit at that beginning of the century.

Factoring up the solar would suck that up since solar was very weak at that end of the time period and produce a better fit.

It also is the case that solar incoming is about 85% absorbed into the ocean well down into the mixed zone and below to provide future energy for the 60 year ocean oscillation so you have some very delayed impacts from solar changes. In fact we don't know if those impacts are limited to 60 years or not.

Thus it would make sense to put two solar functions in there of two different weights.

One to recognize the difference in its over land affects and the other to recognize its over ocean affect.

You have two very different SW absorption physics with solar and it would be good to recognize that fact so you don't overweight short term solar cycles in defiance of the physics of the matter.

[magellan]

So glc, did you come up with the step change to a "new (higher) background level"? Ah, I didn't think so. Please cite your source.

One small item you have failed to consider is the oceans are not gaining heat as was the case in 1998 and no volcanoes interfering with things.

[glc]

So glc, did you come up with the step change to a "new (higher) background level"? Ah, I didn't think so. Please cite your source.

Source for what? I wrote " If this happens again then we'll see a new (higher) background level and a new warmest decade.", i.e. if the pattern follows post-1998 period

One small item you have failed to consider is the oceans are not gaining heat as was the case in 1998

I'd give it a bit longer before jumping to conclusions.

[glc]

And finally I get it solar has an effect.

Solar has always had an effect - just not a very big one. In another post, I made the point that the temperature response to the change in TSI over a solar cycle is pretty much what you'd expect from theory. If TSI falls by 1.3 w/m2 (0.1%) from max to min then, by S-B, you get a fall in temperature of ~0.025% or ~0.07 deg (assuming 288k).

[scpg02]

Jul 2, 2010 0:03:01 GMT glc said:

Solar has always had an effect - just not a very big one.

It is the only energy source for this planet. How is the effect NOT big. You don't find it ironic that during the period we have had small amount of warming on this planet we also had warming on other planets. Is it your contention that the sun has little effect on us but large effect on the others?

[icefisher]

Jul 2, 2010 1:34:35 GMT scpg02 said:

Jul 2, 2010 0:03:01 GMT glc said:

Solar has always had an effect - just not a very big one.

It is the only energy source for this planet. How is the effect NOT big. You don't find it ironic that during the period we have had small amount of warming on this planet we also had warming on other planets. Is it your contention that the sun has little effect on us but large effect on the others?

They wear blinders. The TSI changes we have seen have been minor but even 1.3w/m2 can be converted into a much more powerful force like a trickle charger on a Taser Gun.

These yahoos are on a political mission so no understanding of the real ways of the world is going to change their point of view.

Fact is under the thermoclines in the ocean most of the water is near freezing around 0 degrees Centigrade.

This is called the "NO MIXING ZONE" in every climate model known to man. But is it? How did the water get so cold? I think what you are looking at down there is a 100,000 year ice age.

We watched in awe this past year as the polar vortex changed and brought cold weather to North America, via changing wind patterns. And we know the vortex is a product of magnetism.

We also know that ENSO which can change the global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree is also driven by wind.

And what is the driver for the PDO which can affect global temperatures by more than a 5 degree? Most likely wind also.

And longer cycles, huge deep water currents may change course like an unruly river across a flat plain potentially could cause 2 to 4 degree shifts on a centennial scale.

Driven by changes in wind currents? Who knows beyond the fact the icecores have that sawtoothed look to them with teeth pitched at about 2 to 4 degrees.

But thats right! We only see what we want to see in icecores. Everything else is discarded as noise or anomalies like Steve discarding the fact in the USA 70 years ago it was as warm as today if not warmer. Thats probably either a data problem or a no mixing zone problem! Which it is might be a toss up.

But you have to be wearing blinders to believe it is all TSI driven.
Eventually most of the energy has to come from TSI but not necessarily concurrent with TSI change, but instead via TSI storage over long periods of time via the planet dynamo.

Do I know what is going to happen? Nope! But I like to think that God is laughing while he gently and very timely nudges a current and the Walls of Jericho fall in a heap.

Like I said. I am pulling up the easy chair, getting the popcorn out of the microwave and I am going to enjoy the show whatever the outcome. ;D

[poitsplace]

Socold, your graphs make it pretty obvious that you are blaming 100% of the warming period's temperature increases on AGW. Also they seem to show an exponential curve when the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is more linear and CO2's theoretical maximum forcing is logarithmic.

[scpg02]

Jul 2, 2010 2:55:15 GMT icefisher said:

We also know that ENSO which can change the global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree is also driven by wind.

And what is the driver for the PDO which can affect global temperatures by more than a 5 degree? Most likely wind also.

Well that's what I'm getting from my scientist friends. Convection plays a big part in our climate. Greenhouses warm because of a lack of convection.

Like I said. I am pulling up the easy chair, getting the popcorn out of the microwave and I am going to enjoy the show whatever the outcome. ;D

I'll share.

[glc]

They wear blinders. The TSI changes we have seen have been minor but even 1.3w/m2 can be converted into a much more powerful force like a trickle charger on a Taser Gun.

Icefisher

I've just explained in an earlier post out that the theoretical changes (i.e. Energy being proprtional to the 4th power of T) agree with the observed changes. There is a small ~11 year signal in the temperature record which coincides with the solar cycle. Now you suggest there is some other mechanism which presumably results in a longer term warming (or cooling) trend. Naturally, you have no idea what this might be - and nor does anyone else - but you then blame others for not including this mysterious force.

There are researchers who have been studying the sun for decade after decade. They cannot find anything which supports the sun being the driver of recent warming. Even those who are highly sceptical of AGW like Doug Hoyt can't come up with anything. Every new theory and hypothesis has been knocked back. Leif Svalgaard would love to find a solar/climate link because, as he says, it would raise the importance of solar research significantly.

Do you not see this? Solar science would get an enormous boost from any discovery which revealed that the sun was the main climate driver. Yet they have nothing apart from a few dubious correlations which break down under close analysis.

[jurinko]

Problem with the projections like above is, that the relentless growth is not yet here, but will always start next year.

Few decades back with cold AMO, Alpine glaciers advanced like hell, not caring about the CO2 rise. What is the mechanism, which will break the correlation in the future?


blue - advancing
pink - declining
gray-steady
red curve - AMO index

[duwayne]

Socold,

I'm glad to see that you've moved the starting date of your analysis back toinclude the early 1900's. Have you tried to develop a fit using a lower GHG forcing? Other Ocean Current data including PDO may help with the fit. Or you can just reflect the 60-year cycle which shows up in the Hadcrut data which goes back to the mid-1800's. And inclusion of the general natural warming trend which existed before CO2 started to increase significantly would also be in order. I know this will give you a better fit as it will not suffer from the problem that your graphs show - current temperatures are running below the curve. Could this be because you are imposing a requirement that the curve rise to 3C by 2100?

[nautonnier]

Jul 2, 2010 10:03:39 GMT glc said:

They wear blinders. The TSI changes we have seen have been minor but even 1.3w/m2 can be converted into a much more powerful force like a trickle charger on a Taser Gun.

Icefisher

I've just explained in an earlier post out that the theoretical changes (i.e. Energy being proprtional to the 4th power of T) agree with the observed changes. There is a small ~11 year signal in the temperature record which coincides with the solar cycle. Now you suggest there is some other mechanism which presumably results in a longer term warming (or cooling) trend. Naturally, you have no idea what this might be - and nor does anyone else - but you then blame others for not including this mysterious force.

There are researchers who have been studying the sun for decade after decade. They cannot find anything which supports the sun being the driver of recent warming. Even those who are highly sceptical of AGW like Doug Hoyt can't come up with anything. Every new theory and hypothesis has been knocked back. Leif Svalgaard would love to find a solar/climate link because, as he says, it would raise the importance of solar research significantly.

Do you not see this? Solar science would get an enormous boost from any discovery which revealed that the sun was the main climate driver. Yet they have nothing apart from a few dubious correlations which break down under close analysis.

"I've just explained in an earlier post out that the theoretical changes (i.e. Energy being proprtional to the 4th power of T) agree with the observed changes. There is a small ~11 year signal in the temperature record which coincides with the solar cycle. Now you suggest there is some other mechanism which presumably results in a longer term warming (or cooling) trend. Naturally, you have no idea what this might be - and nor does anyone else - but you then blame others for not including this mysterious force. "


Memory problems glc?

I point you yet again to Shaviv's paper 'Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter' and for a mechanism perhaps you should try again to read Svensmark's hypothesis. I know this doesn't appeal to your simple mathematical approach but it _does_ provide a mechanism that is _not_ just TSI variations. As you know it is based on the idea that lowered solar wind allows more galactic cosmic rays to reach the troposphere which in turn seed more clouds. As you will also know formal experimentation is in progress at CERN on this hypothesis. It may be an idea to wait for the results from that experiment before postulating that there is no mechanism; there is no reason for your insistence that the only solar changes to affect heat content of the Earth are TSI changes; there may be many potential if less direct cooling or heating effects.