|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 12, 2010 22:21:50 GMT
I don't have a good reason to think such warming is due to ocean cycles.
They find natural variability caused slight cooling in recent decades rather than warming. Of course Socold natural variability never warms it always cools. Didn't you know that from Real Climate? Of course the warming of 6,000 years ago, the Roman Optimum, The MWP, and 1911 to 1940 those were caused by something entirely different than the recent warming. . . .they don't know what but they assure us it is different. That's not entirely surprising because it's only skeptics who are strongly pushing the idea that the recent pattern of ocean oscillations caused warming, and typically they just say this they don't present a study or analysis to quantify it.
To take a few examples of problems with skeptic claims, PDO is often cited as explaining global warming in recent decades because until recently we were in a PDO positive cycle. However since 1980s PDO has trended negative, therefore if the positiveness of PDO equates to a warmer earth a negative trend since 1980 implies PDO has had a cooling effect not a warming effect. Indeed but a diminishing PDO that is still in the positive side of its oscillation could be responsible for diminishing warming trend to bring about the same result that will continue to deepen and possibly turn the temperature trend negative as the PDO enters its negative anomaly phase. Also of course PDO has a zero trend over the 20th century that saw warming. So PDO cannot explain any of the overall 20th century warming. Wrong! Prior to the formation of a US Pacific fleet in about 1920 temperatures of the Pacific ocean were not taken in a methodical manner. In the intervening 90 years the PDO has been in a positive phase for about 2/3rds of the time. During the entire period there were no below average solar cycles and the mid point of the cooling phase was interrupted by a record solar cycle. The underlying trend of 1/2 a degree per century has been affected by that. The picture about ocean cycles is far from clear even in respect to cause and effect. It's not possible to distangle various cycles (eg AMO) from the longterm temperature trend itself. Establishing that even blind squirrels can occasionally find an acorn.
For example if global temperature had not increased since 1980 due to man, the north Atlantic probably wouldn't have warmed either, in which case the AMO would have gone negative in the 1990s.
Source please!
Also, you talk about the El Nino/La Nina oscillation inferring that one always follows the other. it's very possible that we'll see 2 consecutive La Ninas on at least 1 occasion over the current 30-year down leg in the Ocean Current cycle as happened in the previous down leg.
What I can confidentally say is that ENSO events mask the multi-decadal warming trend and so taking any interval of 3 years, 5 years or even 10 years is unwise (additionally such short periods suffer from solar cycle noise too)There does not appear to be any limit on the number of years between natural oscillations so I would not be too hasty to just run roughshod with a poorly established assumption that only short periods are affected by natural oscillations. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 12, 2010 23:00:45 GMT
I don't have a good reason to think such warming is due to ocean cycles.
They find natural variability caused slight cooling in recent decades rather than warming. Of course Socold natural variability never warms it always cools. Didn't you know that from Real Climate? It does both, but only one over the past 30 years. We have been observing the recent warming, I take more stock in the fact we know there has been a large greenhouse forcing. As for ocean natural variation I haven't seen any quantified evidence that it can explain any of the recent warming. If positive PDO is warmer then a more positive PDO will be warmer still. Therefore a reduction in the PDO index should mean cooling. If it's more complex than that then there should be a good reason why. Why should a dropping PDO index still cause the globe to get warmer and warmer? PDO index shows flat trend over the 20th century. That might be by design also as the PDO might be calculated by effectively detrending SST data. jisao.washington.edu/pdo/It's from how AMO is calculated. It's roughly detrended sea surface temperature in some region of the north atlantic. Therefore it's cycles are affected by the underlying trend of the north atlantic sea surface temperature, which may have nothing to do with the AMO itself. Eg if humans warm the north atlantic sea surface temperature, then they will change the AMO to be positive. Same goes for the PDO really. Any oscillation index that is calculated based on sea surface temperatures will be changed by humans if humans change the sea surface temperatures in those regions. The only one of any significance known is ENSO. There has been a warming trend from 1980 onwards and that warming trend is not due to ENSO. Is that post 1980 warming trend due to some unknown natural oscillation? I see no evidence for that idea but I do see there must be warming from the rise in greenhouse gases over that period. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 13, 2010 0:12:38 GMT
Of course Socold natural variability never warms it always cools. Didn't you know that from Real Climate? It does both, but only one over the past 30 years. We have been observing the recent warming, I take more stock in the fact we know there has been a large greenhouse forcing. As for ocean natural variation I haven't seen any quantified evidence that it can explain any of the recent warming. If positive PDO is warmer then a more positive PDO will be warmer still. Therefore a reduction in the PDO index should mean cooling. If it's more complex than that then there should be a good reason why. Why should a dropping PDO index still cause the globe to get warmer and warmer? PDO index shows flat trend over the 20th century. That might be by design also as the PDO might be calculated by effectively detrending SST data. jisao.washington.edu/pdo/It's from how AMO is calculated. It's roughly detrended sea surface temperature in some region of the north atlantic. Therefore it's cycles are affected by the underlying trend of the north atlantic sea surface temperature, which may have nothing to do with the AMO itself. Eg if humans warm the north atlantic sea surface temperature, then they will change the AMO to be positive. Same goes for the PDO really. Any oscillation index that is calculated based on sea surface temperatures will be changed by humans if humans change the sea surface temperatures in those regions. The only one of any significance known is ENSO. There has been a warming trend from 1980 onwards and that warming trend is not due to ENSO. Is that post 1980 warming trend due to some unknown natural oscillation? I see no evidence for that idea but I do see there must be warming from the rise in greenhouse gases over that period. All you need to do is prove rule out cloud cover change cannot to account for warming and cooling, then you've got a convert, but you can't. AGW assumes rising CO2 levels decreases cloud cover; zero evidence. We now have 7+ years of good cloud data which does not support the CO2 hypothesis. So if you wish to say 7 or 8 years is not long enough, fine, but there's nothing else that supports the munchkins pulling levers on GCM's. You still after all this time have not provided one iota of hard evidence that even 10% of the warming the last 30+ years is from CO2. The only one of any significance known is ENSO. There has been a warming trend from 1980 onwards and that warming trend is not due to ENSO. Well, then, explain why it isn't. I mean, people that are interested in understanding the climate, one would think they'd need to understand ocean processes. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 13, 2010 12:46:54 GMT
A Socold "long period" is from the Little Ice Age through to the present - this provides a satisfying warming 'trend'
The CO2 rules the universe people are hastily rushing out papers that would have been laughed out of a thesis defense only a few years ago in order to account for any and all warming periods - for example the 'early humans killed mammoths leading to warmer climates as it allowed birch trees to grow' hypothesis. (Strange no attempt to quantify the size of the human or mammoth population - no talk of all that methane from vegetable munching mammoths.... )
We are witnessing the death of science.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 13, 2010 21:00:53 GMT
To return to the subject of the thread..... This is getting to be a cold picture considering we are just past midsummer, the tracks of the last rather disorganized tropical depressions appear to have cooled the water around the Yucatan peninsula and the Atlantic appears to be rapidly cooling. In the Pacific a wide area of cold has started spreading from the ITCZ and along the coast of the Americas  Is this a La Nina modoki? www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037885.shtmlOr is it something larger? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2010 0:44:46 GMT
To return to the subject of the thread..... This is getting to be a cold picture considering we are just past midsummer, the tracks of the last rather disorganized tropical depressions appear to have cooled the water around the Yucatan peninsula and the Atlantic appears to be rapidly cooling. In the Pacific a wide area of cold has started spreading from the ITCZ and along the coast of the Americas Is this a La Nina modoki? www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037885.shtmlOr is it something larger? El Nino Modoki historically is followed by neutral ENSO, not what is occurring. I don't have the reference at the moment, but am sure that is correct. When NOAA predicts a cold, you know darn well it will be colder than that  To warmers it seems counter intuitive, but it should be obvious by now this El Nino is further evidence of cooling taking place, not warming. We shall see by next Spring when we're cautioned once again it is only weather, and as the Arctic ice moves upward in both extent and thickness by end of March, we'll again be told it is but a short pause. The oceans tell the story. The patterns are unmistakable. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 14, 2010 0:54:14 GMT
Hang on im getting deja vu with the 2008 la nina when skeptics were proclaiming "here comes the cooling!" Didn't turn out that time. Won't turn out this time. It doesn't work like that. After this La Nina when temperatures next go back up to El Nino conditions you will notice that the globe has not reversed it's longterm warming trend. It's like the longterm rise in sea level. What was heralded as the reversal of the longterm rise doesn't seem to be turning out so well anymore:  |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 14, 2010 1:29:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2010 2:32:08 GMT
Hang on im getting deja vu with the 2008 la nina when skeptics were proclaiming "here comes the cooling!" Didn't turn out that time. Won't turn out this time. It doesn't work like that. After this La Nina when temperatures next go back up to El Nino conditions you will notice that the globe has not reversed it's longterm warming trend. It's like the longterm rise in sea level. What was heralded as the reversal of the longterm rise doesn't seem to be turning out so well anymore: It's like the longterm rise in sea level. What was heralded as the reversal of the longterm rise doesn't seem to be turning out so well anymore:
It is supposed to be accelerating. False. Didn't turn out that time. Won't turn out this time. It doesn't work like that. After this La Nina when temperatures next go back up to El Nino conditions you will notice that the globe has not reversed it's longterm warming trend. It doesn't need to reverse, only continue to invalidate climate models. You won't find one post where I said 2008 would continue onward and downward. That's not the way it works. In fact, it is even rare for temperatures to go over 3 months consecutively in one direction let alone yearly. On the other hand, find me one climate model that predicted 2008. Oh, that's right, they suck at regional and "short term" forecasts, so much so Met O has given up after years of embarrassment. The oceans are losing heat, period, end of story, and just as it took many decades to attain what the did, it will take many years to come down and that will be reflected in SST and SAT. During that time, temperatures oscillate up and down just as they always have. With each El Nino, that much more heat is being lost to space. Won't it be interesting to see ARGO data at year's end? I did not think this El Nino was going to be so wide spread or as strong. What it means is even more immense amounts of heat is being released. As stated above, Modoki El Nino's do not exhibit La Nina conditions like what is happening. That it is rapidly forming into La Nina (and more) should spark a few brain cells in you, but you are addicted to CO2 and have no concept of ocean processes. There is more to weather and climate than CO2 believe it or not. And to be clear, La Nina is not the opposite of El Nino. That is a misconception many have with ENSO, myself included. I can however find literally thousands of articles quoting scientists we can expect the Big 3C Warm trend to begin any day now. We all know what IPCC GCM's predicted in 2001, we (honest folks) all know they are failing, and simply based on historical patterns alone, the next 3 years will bury them for good. Only Hansen standing out in left field with his pants down manufacturing temperatures can validate his own preconceived 2010 "record" temperature prophesy already guaranteed in June. I'd like a bookie with that much foresight. Are you foolish enough to think 2010 is a lead in to an increase of the vaunted "long term" trend? It will be virtually wiped out in less than 12 months and you'll still be here belly aching that 17 years of "statistically insignificant" warming doesn't mean anything. Now watch and learn what will take place between now and March. This is the first time I can recall that NOAA painted both poles and the majority of the globe blue in their forecasts. Oh, and other than the GISS antics, the probability of 2010 beating 1998 is about 15% at this point for other global temperature products, yes, even HadCRUT. Both UAH and RSS absolutely will not. Wanna bet? BTW, Hansen in 1988 concluded in his Congressional testimony a "statistical significant" warming based on less than 30 years data |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2010 2:39:28 GMT
Yes, thanks. He posts invaluable information. It was also he who discovered the GISS Arctic temp data deletion leaving land/ocean data virtually identical based on just a few cherry picked stations on land. It was fun to see the GISS apologists at WUWT get gobsmacked on that. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 14, 2010 15:05:23 GMT
magellan,
"And to be clear, La Nina is not the opposite of El Nino. That is a misconception many have with ENSO, myself included."
Could you provide a short explanation or a link? If that is a misconception, I admit I had/have it also. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2010 16:36:03 GMT
magellan, "And to be clear, La Nina is not the opposite of El Nino. That is a misconception many have with ENSO, myself included." Could you provide a short explanation or a link? If that is a misconception, I admit I had/have it also. Thank you. I think that too was detailed by Bob Tisdale this year. He knows his stuff on the subject of oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 14, 2010 18:22:48 GMT
Hang on im getting deja vu with the 2008 la nina when skeptics were proclaiming "here comes the cooling!"
Didn't turn out that time. Won't turn out this time. It doesn't work like that. After this La Nina when temperatures next go back up to El Nino conditions you will notice that the globe has not reversed it's longterm warming trend. I would say anything below a +.2degC/decade warming is like icewater in the face of an AGW alarmist. So while the climate might naturally continue to warm in some cause undiscerned multi-century pattern emotions will be cooled off. I think we all recognize natural warming going back to the LIA. The question has always been whether warming is accelerating and with a lot of cherrypicking the IPCC has managed to make a case for that. But 2008 and 2009 temperatures have averaged less than the average of the decade preceding it. And 2010 will need to pull a +.50 anomaly to make for zero warming for those 3 years in comparison to the previous decade when the underlying natural warming has been at least .5degC per century. In other words 2010 needs at least a .66 to actually exemplify IPCC predicted warming and anything less than that is a disappointment. The question of course is when Socold. Will it be Option 1 in 2012 that we see a .5 anomaly? Or as Easterbrook suggests Option 2 maybe 20 years from now? Or as some predict Option 3 a coming Maunder Minimum in another 400 years? No matter which you pick Socold the best you can do is support a trend to a degree and a half warming, so you really need more than that. If its option 2 then AGW is dead, and option 3 maybe a lot of us are dead from the starvation it would likely produce unless of course technology can win the day. Now you are a proponent of Option 4, double Option 1. So what is the sign you are looking for in the empirical record that suggests you are correct and what is the test you apply that would falsify it? I don't see you taking an AGW position here, just defending quite moderate long term warming that CO2 might be a part of but clearly is not all of. Ultimately Socold the clock is running. Steve has indicated the models say the next decade will average 2/10ths greater. Apparently the IPCC has decided to ignore internal variability and is continuing to bank on the warming trend to accelerate. In AR4 they built the scenario on how warming in the most recent 50 years was .13C/decade but how the trend for the century was .076C/century. Obviously they continue to resist the obvious that the trend in the last 50 years was likely caused at least in part by warm phase oscillations similar to the 1911-1944 warming. AGW still continues to ride on the mid 50's deviation from a cooling trend. Fortunately we are going to have a decade of really insubstantial warming (no matter who is right) to test that theory. In other words I am not going to get excited about AGW until I see a year come in at +.63C (Hadcrut) which this coming decade is going to allegedly average. If they don't have something really close (and by that I mean a new record year) by the 2014 AR5 publishing date, my prediction is it won't be published. If 2011 and 2012 average in the .3 range that will mean they will probably need some .9 years at the end of the decade or a whole bunch of .7 years. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 14, 2010 18:57:09 GMT
Hang on im getting deja vu with the 2008 la nina when skeptics were proclaiming "here comes the cooling!"
Didn't turn out that time. Won't turn out this time. It doesn't work like that. After this La Nina when temperatures next go back up to El Nino conditions you will notice that the globe has not reversed it's longterm warming trend. I would say anything below a +.2degC/decade warming is like icewater in the face of an AGW alarmist. So while the climate might naturally continue to warm in some cause undiscerned multi-century pattern emotions will be cooled off. I think we all recognize natural warming going back to the LIA. The question has always been whether warming is accelerating and with a lot of cherrypicking the IPCC has managed to make a case for that. But 2008 and 2009 temperatures have averaged less than the average of the decade preceding it. And 2010 will need to pull a +.50 anomaly to make for zero warming for those 3 years in comparison to the previous decade when the underlying natural warming has been at least .5degC per century. In other words 2010 needs at least a .66 to actually exemplify IPCC predicted warming and anything less than that is a disappointment. The question of course is when Socold. Will it be Option 1 in 2012 that we see a .5 anomaly? Or as Easterbrook suggests Option 2 maybe 20 years from now? Or as some predict Option 3 a coming Maunder Minimum in another 400 years? No matter which you pick Socold the best you can do is support a trend to a degree and a half warming, so you really need more than that. If its option 2 then AGW is dead, and option 3 maybe a lot of us are dead from the starvation it would likely produce unless of course technology can win the day. Now you are a proponent of Option 4, double Option 1. So what is the sign you are looking for in the empirical record that suggests you are correct and what is the test you apply that would falsify it? I don't see you taking an AGW position here, just defending quite moderate long term warming that CO2 might be a part of but clearly is not all of. Ultimately Socold the clock is running. Steve has indicated the models say the next decade will average 2/10ths greater. Apparently the IPCC has decided to ignore internal variability and is continuing to bank on the warming trend to accelerate. In AR4 they built the scenario on how warming in the most recent 50 years was .13C/decade but how the trend for the century was .076C/century. Obviously they continue to resist the obvious that the trend in the last 50 years was likely caused at least in part by warm phase oscillations similar to the 1911-1944 warming. AGW still continues to ride on the mid 50's deviation from a cooling trend. Fortunately we are going to have a decade of really insubstantial warming (no matter who is right) to test that theory. In other words I am not going to get excited about AGW until I see a year come in at +.63C (Hadcrut) which this coming decade is going to allegedly average. If they don't have something really close (and by that I mean a new record year) by the 2014 AR5 publishing date, my prediction is it won't be published. If 2011 and 2012 average in the .3 range that will mean they will probably need some .9 years at the end of the decade or a whole bunch of .7 years. That is the bottom line for the 15 year "no statistically significant warming" test. If 2011 and 2012 average in the .3 range that will mean they will probably need some .9 years at the end of the decade or a whole bunch of .7 years. That truly would be "unprecedented" and AGW promoter's only salvation. Guess what the odds are for that? Warmers for some reason don't see the significance of a flat to declining OHC, which is diametrically opposed to GH "theory". |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 14, 2010 20:05:35 GMT
If 2011 and 2012 average in the .3 range that will mean they will probably need some .9 years at the end of the decade or a whole bunch of .7 years. That truly would be "unprecedented" and AGW promoter's only salvation. Guess what the odds are for that? Warmers for some reason don't see the significance of a flat to declining OHC, which is diametrically opposed to GH "theory". I have seen it auditing failing businesses. These guys are doing everything hoping to turn around a sideways operation. The audit is an important element because that is the route to operating cash. Auditors then are put in the position of telling them the facts. . . .namely sorry the plan is not going to work because you aren't going to get the cash unless you have a rich uncle. You see the same dynamic in the addicted gambler. The next roll is going to get me even. Its the very definition of an unsuccessful enterprise and the first and only step to recovery is first admitting: "I am an addict" Socold is gleefully running around celebrating that the cooling of the last two years was minimal or non-existent and an El Nino will bail him out to neutral. And of course Steve with his insider look at the models is going to point to 2/10s of a degree warming in the next decade. (ala Met BBQ summers) But even .2 is really weak. So the strategy seems to be to try to get something right for a change and claim because they predicted that right the rest will turn out right. . . .all the while relying upon an even higher level of accelerated warming through out the rest of the century to make up for what they haven't got yet. But even a .2 suggests a decade of .63 anomalies and a 20 year slope of .1degC/decade. So I kind of think it looks like they will be wrong on the next decade and even deeper in the hole on the AR4 predictions. The scientist from UEA recently said the same thing. The new modeling effort isn't producing fruit but instead uncertainty is becoming greater rather than less. Worse than that the lack of warming taught them nothing about natural variation. They refuse to look outside and project anything whatsoever from the wealth of data nature is providing them. They would rather rely on their ivory tower calculations and pretend that natural variation only serves to steer them below the line, never ever above it. At some point there has to come an admission "thats not science" "I am a compulsive non-scientist". They have confused science with their egos. Myself I am going to ride these guys like a horse and dig my spurs in deep. In Missouri they have a motto for it. "Show Me" |
|
To warmers it seems counter intuitive, but it should be obvious by now this El Nino is further evidence of cooling taking place, not warming. We shall see by next Spring when we're cautioned once again it is only weather, and as the Arctic ice moves upward in both extent and thickness by end of March, we'll again be told it is but a short pause. 
